ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) phases: cross cultural adaptation and psychometric validation for Polish palliative settings.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring palliative care quality requires the application of evaluation methods to compare clinically meaningful groups of patients across different settings. Such protocols are currently lacking in Poland. The Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) concept of Palliative phases precisely defines patients, enables episodes of care extraction for benchmarking and further assessment of service delivery. The present study is aimed at developing cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation for a Polish translation of Palliative phases.
methodsForward and backward translation was performed to obtain a Polish draft version regarding definitions of the PCOC phases. The draft was then subjected to linguistic and graphical transformations in the process of cognitive interviewing. The acceptability of the Polish version was assessed based on staff perceptions of fit, ease of assignment and familiarity with the patient's and family's situation. Finally, cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 313 hospice and home-care palliative patients. The attending doctor and nurse independently evaluated the same patients using the Polish version of the PCOC phases to establish inter-rater reliability values. Then, to determine its construct validity, the PCOC indicators were referred to patients' prognosis, functioning level and PALCOM scale scores.
resultsA Polish draft version of the PCOC phases was prepared. Seven of the 13 interviewees reported problems with comprehending this proposal. This prompted changes being made to linguistic and graphical aspects of the tool. The majority of respondents preferred the final graphical scheme of phases, prepared after round-two of interviews. Scheme application acceptability was confirmed in a practical trial. The respondents' overall conviction regarding degree of fit and assignment ease was high. Seventy percent of PCOC phase assignments was in agreement, and a moderate level or inter-rater reliability was obtained (kappa 0.573). The highest proportion of totally bed-bound patients with the shortest survival prognosis was observed for the terminal phase, while the highest complexity of palliative care needs was noted for the unstable one.
conclusionsThe PCOC phases tool appears to be a valuable resource for specialists in palliative care settings to support audit measures. Practical training is recommended prior to its implementation in routine practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.