Observational studyJournal of advanced nursing2025
Adaptation and Validation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT): A Quantitative Methodological Study.
Observational study in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Screening Tools for the Early Identification of Palliative Care Needs in Patients with Advanced Chronic Conditions: An Updated Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
aimsTo translate the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) into Chinese and conduct preliminarily tests of its performance in hospitalized patients with cancer.
designA cross-sectional validation study conducted from January to March 2024.
methodsSPICT 2022 was translated in both directions, following the Brislin translation model, and the Chinese version culturally debugged through expert consultation and pre-testing. Content validity was evaluated by expert scoring. Tool internal consistency was evaluated using KR-20 coefficient, and retest reliability was evaluated using kappa coefficient. The screening performance was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).
resultsOf 388 hospitalized cancer patients included, approximately one-quarter had potential palliative care needs. Content validity of the Chinese version of SPICT was good, as were internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Accuracy (0.905), sensitivity (0.806), specificity (0.943), PPV (0.845), and NPV (0.926) for the Chinese version of SPICT indicated that it is an acceptable instrument.
conclusionThe Chinese version of SPICT can be applied for screening of palliative care needs in hospitalized patients with cancer in China. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The Chinese version of SPICT had been adapted to assist clinicians or nurses in quickly identifying hospitalized patients with cancer who may have palliative care needs. This is conducive to help clinical team to start palliative care consultation, care goal discussion and (or) referral for patients in clinical practice. And it probably helps to advance integration between palliative care assessment and routine oncology care assessment. IMPACT: This study provided a screening tool for palliative care, with good validity and reliability, as well as excellent screening performance to facilitate palliative care need screening in clinical practice, promote palliative care referrals and improve patient quality of life. REPORTING
methodThis study was reported according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.