ArticleBMC palliative care2025
A validation study of the modified Chinese version of the integrated palliative care outcome scale (IPOS) among patients with advanced illness in Hong Kong.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to conduct holistic person-centred assessment, monitoring and research in progressive illness, a valid tool is required that captures the specific symptoms and concerns faced by patients and families. While the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is widely used, its cultural applicability for Chinese populations remains unestablished.
methodsThis psychometric validation study aimed to culturally adapt the IPOS and evaluate its psychometric properties in Chinese-speaking populations. Conducted in oncology and palliative care settings in Hong Kong, the study comprised two phases. Phase I: Traditional Chinese IPOS translation with face/content validity testing through cognitive interviews(7 patients with advanced illness, 6 caregivers, 15 healthcare professionals) and expert panel meeting. Phase II: psychometric testing with 236 patient-caregiver dyads and 21 professionals. Analyses included exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses, convergent validity with Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) item pairs, divergent validity with State Hope Scale (SHS), predictive validity with EuroQoL5-dimensional 5-level Scale(EQ-5D-5L)/Palliative Performance Scale-version2(PPSv2), known-group validity, reliability, responsiveness and feasibility.
resultsThe Modified Traditional Chinese IPOS(MC-IPOS) was formed with swelling of limbs and difficulty in sleeping added, demonstrated high face/content validity. EFA extracted 5 factors with CFA indicating marginally acceptable indices(CFI=.91, RMSEA/SRMR=.06); the 1-factor(scree plot suggested) and theoretical 3-factor solutions exhibited poor fit, leading to further item-level analysis. Convergent validity was established with significant correlations(.35≤ρ≤.79) to ESAS item pairs; divergent validity unconfirmed. Known-group validity was evidenced by significant score differences(total scores and 17/19 item scores) observed between stable and unstable/deteriorating patients. Specific MC-IPOS items can predict corresponding EQ-5D-5L items, while PPSv2 can predict most MC-IPOS items. Internal consistency(α=.86) was good, inter-rater reliability was acceptable(>80% items .2w≤.61 across all dyads/timepoints), and test-retest reliability(70% items kw≥.60) was good. MC-IPOS was responsive in improved group(z=-2.49, p<.001), feasible and acceptable(patient mean completion time 8.39 minutes, 86.9% reported acceptable length).
conclusionsThe MC-IPOS has adequate properties for implementation to improve routine palliative care practice and research among Chinese-speaking populations.
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.