BACKGROUND: The concept of a good death is central to end-of-life care research. Despite its importance and the high interest in the topic, there are few measures currently available for use in clinical research. PURPOSE: The present work describes the development and testing of a set of items intended to measure the importance of several components posited to be critical to the concept of a good death. It is intended for use with health care providers and lay people in the context of end-of-life care research and education. POPULATION: Four cohorts (n = 596) were recruited to participate, representing two helping profession disciplines, nonhelping professionals, and a range of ages, specifically: (1) undergraduate medical students; (2) master's degree students in nursing; (3) graduate students from the life sciences; and (4) practicing hospice nurses. METHODS: Participants completed self-report questionnaires at baseline and retest. Psychometric analyses included item frequency distributions, factor analysis, alpha reliability, intraclass correlation, and measures of association. RESULTS: The new Concept of a Good Death measure demonstrated good item frequency distributions, acceptable internal consistency reliability, and test-retest stability. Its factor structure revealed that three distinct domains are measured, reflecting the psychosocial/spiritual, physical, and clinical aspects of a good death. An examination of patterns of correlations showed differential associations with death anxiety, spiritual beliefs and practices, anxious mood, and sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The new Concept of a Good Death instrument appears to measure three distinct factors which people consider important to a Good Death. Ratings of the importance of these factors are reliable and valid. The instrument has the advantage of being a brief, self-report index for use in end-of-life care research.
BACKGROUND: The concept of a good death is central to end-of-life care research. Despite its importance and the high interest in the topic, there are few measures currently available for use in clinical research. PURPOSE: The present work describes the development and testing of a set of items intended to measure the importance of several components posited to be critical to the concept of a good death. It is intended for use with health care providers and lay people in the context of end-of-life care research and education. POPULATION: Four cohorts (n = 596) were recruited to participate, representing two helping profession disciplines, nonhelping professionals, and a range of ages, specifically: (1) undergraduate medical students; (2) master's degree students in nursing; (3) graduate students from the life sciences; and (4) practicing hospice nurses. METHODS:Participants completed self-report questionnaires at baseline and retest. Psychometric analyses included item frequency distributions, factor analysis, alpha reliability, intraclass correlation, and measures of association. RESULTS: The new Concept of a Good Death measure demonstrated good item frequency distributions, acceptable internal consistency reliability, and test-retest stability. Its factor structure revealed that three distinct domains are measured, reflecting the psychosocial/spiritual, physical, and clinical aspects of a good death. An examination of patterns of correlations showed differential associations with death anxiety, spiritual beliefs and practices, anxious mood, and sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The new Concept of a Good Death instrument appears to measure three distinct factors which people consider important to a Good Death. Ratings of the importance of these factors are reliable and valid. The instrument has the advantage of being a brief, self-report index for use in end-of-life care research.
Authors: Richard A Mularski; Sydney M Dy; Lisa R Shugarman; Anne M Wilkinson; Joanne Lynn; Paul G Shekelle; Sally C Morton; Virginia C Sun; Ronda G Hughes; Lara K Hilton; Margaret Maglione; Shannon L Rhodes; Cony Rolon; Karl A Lorenz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.402