ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Psychometric properties of palliative care outcome measures: a multi-centre study.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 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.
- Patient-Reported Palliative Care Outcomes in Kazakhstan: A Cross-Regional Study Using the POS Questionnaire.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriodic evaluation of the psychometric properties of palliative care outcome measures is essential to ensure accurate assessment of patient outcomes and to support ongoing improvements in care quality. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of three tools: the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), the Symptom Assessment Scale (SAS), and the Palliative Care Problem Severity Score (PCPSS).
methodsWe conducted a multicentre study using de-identified data collected from 378 participants. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for all tools, and confirmatory factor analysis was performed for the IPOS. Convergence and discriminant validity were examined for the SAS and PCPSS by analysing the correlations between similar and dissimilar items, respectively. Lastly, known-groups comparison validity was assessed.
resultsOf the 378 participants, 54.5% were male, and most (77.5%) had cancer. Internal consistency was good for the IPOS total (α = 0.81), acceptable for the SAS (α = 0.70), and marginal for the PCPSS (α = 0.65). A strong correlation was observed between the pain construct of SAS and PCPSS (r = 0.74). Both the PCPSS and SAS effectively discriminated symptoms between palliative care phases and settings of care in known-group comparisons. The physical domain of the IPOS demonstrated good discriminative ability in differentiating symptoms between cancer and non-cancer patients. Our data confirmed the three theoretical domains of the IPOS—physical, emotional, and informational.
conclusionThe IPOS demonstrated higher reliability using internal consistency, whereas SAS and PCPSS showed good validity in known group comparisons. These findings may inform the selection of context-appropriate palliative care outcome measures.
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.