Philippa Hughes1, Nisar Ahmed1, Michelle Winslow1, Stephen J Walters2, Karen Collins3, Bill Noble1. 1. Department of Oncology, Academic Unit of Supportive Care, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 2. Health Services Research, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 3. Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care (SPARC) was developed in response to concerns that palliative care may not be reaching all people who could benefit from it. Acceptability of the tool is an important step in developing its future use. AIMS: To elicit the views of a wide variety of members of consumer and self-help support groups concerned with health care on the relevance, acceptability and the overall perception of using SPARC as an early holistic needs assessment tool in supportive and palliative care. METHODS: This study was conducted in South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire (UK). Ninety-nine consumer and self-help groups were identified from information in the public domain. Thirty-eight groups participated. Packs containing study information and self-complete postal questionnaires were distributed to groups, and they were asked to circulate these to their members. Completed questionnaires were returned in pre-paid envelopes to the research team. RESULTS: 135 questionnaires and feedback forms were returned. The majority of respondents found SPARC easy to understand (93% (120/129; 95% Confidence Interval 87% to 96%) and complete (94% (125/133; 95% CI: 88% to 97%). A minority, 12.2% (16/131), of respondents found questions on SPARC 'too sensitive'. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, respondents considered SPARC an acceptable and relevant tool for clinical assessment of supportive and palliative-care needs. Whilst a small minority of people found SPARC difficult to understand (i.e. patients with cognitive impairments), most categories of service user found it relevant. Clinical studies are necessary to establish the clinical utility of SPARC.
BACKGROUND: Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care (SPARC) was developed in response to concerns that palliative care may not be reaching all people who could benefit from it. Acceptability of the tool is an important step in developing its future use. AIMS: To elicit the views of a wide variety of members of consumer and self-help support groups concerned with health care on the relevance, acceptability and the overall perception of using SPARC as an early holistic needs assessment tool in supportive and palliative care. METHODS: This study was conducted in South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire (UK). Ninety-nine consumer and self-help groups were identified from information in the public domain. Thirty-eight groups participated. Packs containing study information and self-complete postal questionnaires were distributed to groups, and they were asked to circulate these to their members. Completed questionnaires were returned in pre-paid envelopes to the research team. RESULTS: 135 questionnaires and feedback forms were returned. The majority of respondents found SPARC easy to understand (93% (120/129; 95% Confidence Interval 87% to 96%) and complete (94% (125/133; 95% CI: 88% to 97%). A minority, 12.2% (16/131), of respondents found questions on SPARC 'too sensitive'. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, respondents considered SPARC an acceptable and relevant tool for clinical assessment of supportive and palliative-care needs. Whilst a small minority of people found SPARC difficult to understand (i.e. patients with cognitive impairments), most categories of service user found it relevant. Clinical studies are necessary to establish the clinical utility of SPARC.
Authors: E G Boland; J W Boland; Y Ezaydi; D M Greenfield; S H Ahmedzai; J A Snowden Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Roma Maguire; John Connaghan; Anne Arber; Naomi Klepacz; Kevin G Blyth; John McPhelim; Paul Murray; Hitasha Rupani; Anoop Chauhan; Peter Williams; Laura McNaughton; Kirstie Woods; Anne Moylan Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 5.428