ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Evaluating quality of care for dying patients from the perspective of bereaved relatives: validation of the Chinese version of the international care of the dying evaluation.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew recognized, valid and reliable tools are used to assess the current quality of care at the very end-of-life from the bereaved relative’s perspective in Mainland China. The purpose of this study was to validate the Chinese version of the international Care Of the Dying Evaluation (i-CODE) questionnaire by assessing its reliability and validity.
methodsFrom June 2023 to January 2024, participants were 216 bereaved relatives who were the primary caregivers of the deceased patients. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were conducted, concurrent and discriminant validity was examined by correlating scores from the Chinese version of the i-CODE with Good Death Inventory (GDI), Care Evaluation Scale (CES), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Internal reliability was assessed with Cronbach alpha (α) and test-retest reliability was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC).
resultsThe Chinese version of the i-CODE had four dimensions and 27 items were confirmed based on confirmatory factor analysis of the factor structure proposed by the authors of the original version. The fit indices were acceptable: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.069, Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was 0.063, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.879, and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.864. The i-CODE was moderately correlated with the GDI (r = 0.50, p < 0.001) and CES (r = 0.31, p < 0.001) and not correlated with PHQ-9 (r = 0.02, p = 0.765). The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach’s α = 0.91) and the test-retest reliability was good (ICC = 0.73).
conclusionsThe Chinese version of the i-CODE demonstrated acceptable preliminary psychometric properties and broadly supported the original four-factor structure, indicating suitability for assessing the quality of care in the last days of life from the perspective of bereaved relatives in Mainland China. Further validation in larger and more diverse samples is needed, and the scale may be useful for clinical evaluation, quality improvement and cross-cultural research in end-of-life care.
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.