Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39987038›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2025

Internal consistency and structural validity of the Swiss easy-read Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for People with dementia: a secondary exploratory factor analysis.

Frank Spichiger, André Meichtry, Philip Larkin, Andrea Koppitz

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Frank SpichigerHES-So, School of Health Fribourg, Institute of Applied Health Research, Route Des Arsenaux 16a, Fribourg, 1700, Switzerland. frank.spichiger@hefr.ch.
André MeichtryBern University of Applied Sciences, School of Health Professionals, Murtenstrasse 10, Bern, 3008, Switzerland.
Philip LarkinLausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare, Route de La Corniche 10, Lausanne, 1010, Switzerland.
Andrea KoppitzHES-So, School of Health Fribourg, Institute of Applied Health Research, Route Des Arsenaux 16a, Fribourg, 1700, Switzerland.

Funding

Gottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner-Stiftung,Switzerland PC 20/17HES-SO University of Applied Science and Arts Western Switzerland Bureau d'appui et de coordination de la formation doctorale R_2023-08-25Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften,Switzerland PC 20/17
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for People with Dementia (IPOS-Dem) was developed as a promising person-centred proxy measure of symptoms and concerns. We used the Swiss-German easy-read version, a measure designed to be completed individually by family members and frontline staff caring for people with dementia. In this secondary data analysis of multicentre trial data, we investigate the IPOS-Dem's structural validity and internal consistency of the version.

methodsA total of 257 people with dementia were assessed by frontline staff, while family members assessed 118 people residing in one of 23 participating Swiss-German long-term care facilities. Each IPOS-Dem version, corresponding to the two rater populations (family members and frontline staff), underwent exploratory factor analysis separately, using data from one assessment per person with dementia. A minimum residual solution with varimax rotation was calculated to determine the factor structure. Item reduction decisions were based on factor loadings and indices for internal consistency.

resultsThe construct validity of the Swiss-German easy-read IPOS-Dem for frontline staff is demonstrated by two factors: Dementia Interaction and Physical Impact (Cronbach's α = 0.83) and Dementia Emotional and Behavioural Impact (Cronbach's α = 0.81). Four factors, with Cronbach's α ranging from 0.77 to 0.86, were computed for the family member version: Dementia Interaction Impact, Easy-to-Assess Dementia Physical Impact, Hard-to-Assess Dementia Physical Impact and Dementia Emotional and Behavioural Impact.

conclusionsLike other reduced patient-related outcome measures, palliative care measures and their parent instrument IPOS we identified subscales in the easy-read IPOS-Dem that describe a psychosocial impact and a physical impact. Differences in the internal structure of the family and staff versions of the IPOS-Dem likely stem from variations in observation intervals, roles and perspectives, with family members often focusing on loss and past experiences whereas staff may equate quality of life with quality of care leading to differing ratings. However, the identified internal consistency indices between 0.77 and 0.86 indicate acceptable internal consistency for the subscales and the IPOS-Dem should be taken forward for further psychometric evaluation.

trial registrationThe overarching trial has been approved by the Swiss Regional Ethics Committee of the Canton of Zürich as the leading ethics committee for the involved regions, with clearance certification number BASEC2019-01847 (12/11/2019). The main study and secondary analysis are registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00022339, 05/10/2020). Full registration is available online at http://www.drks.de/DRKS00022339 .

Indexed as

DementiaOutcome Assessment, Health CarePalliative CarePsychometricsAgedAged, 80 and overFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandDementiaFamily membersInternal consistencyNursing homePerson-centred outcome measuresPsychometricsStructural validitySymptom assessmentSymptom burden

Identifiers

PMID39987038
PMCPMC11846360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.