Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39691593›Full record

ArticlePalliative care and social practice2024

Development of a child and family centred outcome measure for children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions: progress to date on the Children's Palliative Care Outcome Scale (C-POS:UK).

Debbie Braybrook, Lucy Coombes, Daney Harðardóttir, Hannah M Scott, Katherine Bristowe, Clare Ellis-Smith, Anna Roach, Christina Ramsenthaler, Myra Bluebond-Langner, Julia Downing and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Palliative care and social practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Debbie BraybrookCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London SE5 9PJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9253-4955
Lucy CoombesCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7833-1016
Daney HarðardóttirCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Hannah M ScottCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1243-3500
Katherine BristoweCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1809-217X
Clare Ellis-SmithCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Anna RoachFaculty of Population Health Sciences, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Christina RamsenthalerCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Myra Bluebond-LangnerLouis Dundas Centre for Children's Palliative Care, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9281-5431
Julia DowningCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3450-785X
Fliss E M MurtaghWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1289-3726
Lorna K FraserCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Richard HardingCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Development of a paediatric palliative care child and family centred outcome measure is a priority for health care professionals, researchers and advocates. It is methodologically challenging to develop a measure relevant for such a heterogenous population with complex needs. Involving children in measuring development is vital. Objective: To develop C-POS:UK (Children's Palliative Care Outcome Scale, UK), a person-centred outcome measure (PCOM) for children with life-limiting conditions and their families, and to test its psychometric properties. Design: Sequential mixed-methods approach to PCOM development, guided by Rothrock's measure development process and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. Methods: (i) Qualitative interviews about priority symptoms and concerns, with embedded exploration of measure design for children with life-limiting conditions; (ii) systematic review of measure design for children; (iii) modified Delphi survey, and consultation with children, on priority items for new measure; (iv) expert item generation meeting to develop C-POS:UK; (v) cognitive testing to refine C-POS:UK; (vi) psychometric validation. Results: (i) 106 participants described physical, emotional/psychological, spiritual/existential, social and practical concerns. Measure design was discussed by 79 participants comprising preferred response format, recall period and measure administration for children with life-limiting conditions; (ii) systematic review highlighted need for: different versions of measure accounting for child's developmental stage and cognitive ability; parent/carer involvement as proxies for very young children; and testing to clarify recall periods and response formats at different developmental stages; (iii) Delphi survey: 82 participants (in the first round), with a move towards consensus, but with some differing priorities in stakeholder groups: professionals prioritised physical symptoms, parents prioritised psychosocial and practical matters, while consulted children prioritised normality; (iv) 22 experts contributed to item generation meeting, resulting in five versions of C-POS:UK accounting for child's developmental stage and cognitive ability, and proxy involvement; (v) 48 participants cognitively tested initial C-POS:UK, informing comprehension, comprehensiveness and acceptability; (vi) psychometric validation is ongoing. Conclusion: A sequential approach informed by Rothrock and COSMIN has supported development of the first version of C-POS:UK. Psychometric validation is underway and will be followed by implementation planning.

Indexed as

outcome measure developmentpaediatricspalliative carepatient-centred outcome measure

Identifiers

PMID39691593
PMCPMC11650473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.