ArticlePloS one2026
Content validity of the quality of dying and death questionnaire- revised global-version in North American inpatient hospices.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextEnhancing end-of-life care requires valid measurement of the quality of dying and death, but existing measures of this outcome have limited applicability across varied cultural and resource settings. To address this gap, we revised the Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire (QODD) to create the QODD-Revised Global Version (QODD-RGV).
objectivesOur objective was to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the content validity of the QODD-RGV questionnaire in North American inpatient hospice settings based on item relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness.
methodsBereaved caregivers of patients who died in inpatient hospices in Canada and the United States were recruited 4-6 months after death of the patient. Participants completed the QODD-RGV, a 26-item measure assessing the experience of patients in the last week of life regarding symptoms, care preferences, and social support. Cognitive interviews were conducted with verbal probing and think-aloud techniques to evaluate the participants' understanding of the items and the information they relied upon to make their ratings. Interview transcripts were coded independently by two team members followed by consensus coding. Qualitative content analysis was performed.
resultsEighteen cognitive interview protocols were completed. Participants indicated that their ratings were most commonly based on information from the perspective of the patient or themselves. The most common judgment strategy was comparison to "a hoped for or ideal dying experience," followed by "a state of distress/no distress." All respondents used multiple standards of comparison. Response difficulty was most frequently due to lack of communication with the patient. No single item was consistently misunderstood, but there was uncertainty about the ratings of some items due to limited caregiver knowledge or time spent communicating with the patient.
conclusionThe present study with bereaved caregivers in North American inpatient hospice settings provides preliminary evidence supporting the content validity of the QODD-RGV in North American hospice settings based on relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness of the items.
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.