Katrin R Sigurdardottir1,2,3, Stein Kaasa1,4, Jan H Rosland2,5, Claudia Bausewein6,7, Lukas Radbruch8,9, Dagny F Haugen1,3. 1. 1 European Palliative Care Research Centre, Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. 2. 2 Sunniva Centre for Palliative Care, Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 3. 3 Regional Centre of Excellence for Palliative Care, Western Norway, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 4. 4 Department of Oncology, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. 5. 5 Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 6. 6 Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK. 7. 7 Department for Palliative Medicine, University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany. 8. 8 Department of Palliative Medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 9. 9 European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the barriers identified in palliative care research is the lack of common criteria to describe the population. AIM: The aim of this Delphi process was to obtain consensus on a basic set of core variables to describe or classify a palliative care cancer population. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a five-step international Delphi exercise. A total of 117 experts were invited to participate. Based on a literature review and analyses of existing minimum datasets for national databases, a list of 18 proposed variables was presented in the first Delphi round. The two first rounds focused on which variables to include, and several new variables were proposed. The three last Delphi rounds focused on how the agreed variables should be recorded. Consensus was defined as at least 70% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 64 experts from 30 countries participated. High consensus was reached on 31 variables, divided between a 'patient form' - date of birth, gender, living situation, education, ethnicity and 12 symptoms - and a 'health-care personnel form' - patient's date of birth, principal diagnosis, date of the principal diagnosis, stage of the cancer disease, site of metastases, present anticancer treatment, main additional diagnoses, stage of the additional diagnoses, medication, weight loss, performance status, cognitive impairment, place of care and provision of care. It was more difficult to agree upon how to record the variables, but consensus was reached on all except ethnicity, vomiting and weight loss. CONCLUSION: Consensus was reached on a set of core variables and how they should be recorded.
BACKGROUND: One of the barriers identified in palliative care research is the lack of common criteria to describe the population. AIM: The aim of this Delphi process was to obtain consensus on a basic set of core variables to describe or classify a palliative care cancer population. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a five-step international Delphi exercise. A total of 117 experts were invited to participate. Based on a literature review and analyses of existing minimum datasets for national databases, a list of 18 proposed variables was presented in the first Delphi round. The two first rounds focused on which variables to include, and several new variables were proposed. The three last Delphi rounds focused on how the agreed variables should be recorded. Consensus was defined as at least 70% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 64 experts from 30 countries participated. High consensus was reached on 31 variables, divided between a 'patient form' - date of birth, gender, living situation, education, ethnicity and 12 symptoms - and a 'health-care personnel form' - patient's date of birth, principal diagnosis, date of the principal diagnosis, stage of the cancer disease, site of metastases, present anticancer treatment, main additional diagnoses, stage of the additional diagnoses, medication, weight loss, performance status, cognitive impairment, place of care and provision of care. It was more difficult to agree upon how to record the variables, but consensus was reached on all except ethnicity, vomiting and weight loss. CONCLUSION: Consensus was reached on a set of core variables and how they should be recorded.
Authors: Kirstine Skov Benthien; Mie Nordly; Katja Videbæk; Geana Paula Kurita; Hans von der Maase; Helle Timm; Mette Kildevæld Simonsen; Christoffer Johansen; Per Sjøgren Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Morten Thronæs; Sunil X Raj; Cinzia Brunelli; Sigrun Saur Almberg; Ola Magne Vagnildhaug; Susanna Bruheim; Birgit Helgheim; Stein Kaasa; Anne Kari Knudsen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Albert Tuca; Margarita Viladot; Carmen Barrera; Manoli Chicote; Irene Casablancas; Claudia Cruz; Elena Font; Javier Marco-Hernández; Joan Padrosa; Anais Pascual; Núria Codorniu; Begoña Román Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Hilde Krogstad; Stine Marie Sundt-Hansen; Marianne Jensen Hjermstad; Liv Ågot Hågensen; Stein Kaasa; Jon Håvard Loge; Sunil X Raj; Aslak Steinsbekk; Kari Sand Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ingebrigt Røen; Anne-Tove Brenne; Cinzia Brunelli; Hans Stifoss-Hanssen; Gunn Grande; Tora Skeidsvoll Solheim; Stein Kaasa; Anne Kari Knudsen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.603