Literature DB >> 18946683

The palliative performance scale: examining its inter-rater reliability in an outpatient palliative radiation oncology clinic.

Sarah Campos1, Liying Zhang, Emily Sinclair, May Tsao, Elizabeth A Barnes, Cyril Danjoux, Arjun Sahgal, Philiz Goh, Shaelyn Culleton, Gunita Mitera, Edward Chow.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) was developed by the Victoria Hospice Society in 1996 to modernize the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Currently, it is being used to measure palliative patient performance status in a variety of settings. Despite its widespread use, only one study has examined the inter-rater reliability of the PPS.
PURPOSE: To examine the inter-rater reliability of the PPS in measuring performance status in patients seen in an outpatient palliative radiation oncology clinic
METHODS: Performance status for 102 consecutive patients was assessed by an oncologist (MD), a radiation therapist (RT), and a research assistant (RA) in the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program at the Odette Cancer Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Raters' scores were analyzed for correlation and compared to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the PPS tool.
RESULTS: Excellent correlation was found between the scores rated by the MD and RA (r = 0.86); good correlation was observed between scores rated by the MD and RT (r = 0.69) and the RT and RA (r = 0.77). Scores between all three raters, as well as between rater pairs, were also found to have good reliability as measured by the Chronbach's alpha coefficient. Significant results were obtained for the range of PPS scores in which the majority of our patients fell: 40-80%.
CONCLUSION: PPS was shown to have good overall inter-rater reliability in an outpatient palliative setting, but more research is needed to establish the validity and reliability of the tool in a variety of different palliative settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18946683     DOI: 10.1007/s00520-008-0524-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  19 in total

1.  Validity of the palliative performance scale from a survival perspective.

Authors:  T Morita; J Tsunoda; S Inoue; S Chihara
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.612

2.  Validation of the palliative performance scale for inpatients admitted to a palliative care unit in Sydney, Australia.

Authors:  Kiran Virik; Paul Glare
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.612

3.  Palliative performance status, heart rate and respiratory rate as predictive factors of survival time in terminally ill cancer patients.

Authors:  Cristina de Miguel Sánchez; Sofía Garrido Elustondo; Alicia Estirado; Fernando Vicente Sánchez; Cristina García de la Rasilla Cooper; Andrés López Romero; Angel Otero; Luis García Olmos
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.612

Review 4.  A systematic review of prognostic tools for estimating survival time in palliative care.

Authors:  Francis Lau; Denise Cloutier-Fisher; Craig Kuziemsky; Fraser Black; Michael Downing; Elizabeth Borycki; Francis Ho
Journal:  J Palliat Care       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.250

5.  Palliative performance scale (PPS): a new tool.

Authors:  F Anderson; G M Downing; J Hill; L Casorso; N Lerch
Journal:  J Palliat Care       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.250

6.  Is the palliative performance scale a useful predictor of mortality in a heterogeneous hospice population?

Authors:  Joan Harrold; Elizabeth Rickerson; Janet T Carroll; Jennifer McGrath; Knashawn Morales; Jennifer Kapo; David Casarett
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.947

7.  Use of Palliative Performance Scale in end-of-life prognostication.

Authors:  Francis Lau; G Michael Downing; Mary Lesperance; Jack Shaw; Craig Kuziemsky
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.947

8.  The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting.

Authors:  V Mor; L Laliberte; J N Morris; M Wiemann
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1984-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study.

Authors:  J B Sørensen; M Klee; T Palshof; H H Hansen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  A reliability and validity study of the Palliative Performance Scale.

Authors:  Francis Ho; Francis Lau; Michael G Downing; Mary Lesperance
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2008-08-04       Impact factor: 3.234

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Dealing with prognostic uncertainty: the role of prognostic models and websites for patients with advanced cancer.

Authors:  David Hui; John P Maxwell; Carlos Eduardo Paiva
Journal:  Curr Opin Support Palliat Care       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.302

2.  Nurse and physician inter-rater agreement of three performance status measures in palliative care outpatients.

Authors:  Camilla Zimmermann; Debika Burman; Shazeen Bandukwala; Dori Seccareccia; Ebru Kaya; John Bryson; Gary Rodin; Christopher Lo
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Comfort level of caregivers of cancer patients receiving palliative care.

Authors:  Maisa Vitória Gayoso; Marla Andréia Garcia de Avila; Thays Antunes da Silva; Rúbia Aguiar Alencar
Journal:  Rev Lat Am Enfermagem       Date:  2018-08-09

4.  Performance Status Assessment by Using ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Score for Cancer Patients by Oncology Healthcare Professionals.

Authors:  Faisal Azam; Muhammad Farooq Latif; Ayesha Farooq; Syed Hammad Tirmazy; Saad AlShahrani; Shahid Bashir; Nedal Bukhari
Journal:  Case Rep Oncol       Date:  2019-09-25

5.  Palliative Performance Scale: cross cultural adaptation and psychometric validation for Polish hospice setting.

Authors:  Tomasz Dzierżanowski; Tomasz Gradalski; Michael Kozlowski
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 3.234

6.  Reliability of Goldberg Scoring System in the Radiographic Evaluation of Bony Union after Bone Grafting.

Authors:  Young Choi; Young Hoon Yang; Young-Ho Kwon
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2021-11-15

7.  Reliability of the EOS Imaging System for Assessment of the Spinal and Pelvic Alignment in the Sagittal Plane.

Authors:  Sang Bum Kim; Youn Moo Heo; Cheol Mog Hwang; Tae Gyun Kim; Jee Young Hong; You Gun Won; Chang Uk Ham; Young Ki Min; Jin Woong Yi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2018-11-21
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.