Maria Heckel1, Sonja Bussmann2, Stephanie Stiel3, Martin Weber2, Christoph Ostgathe3. 1. Department of Palliative Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center CCC Erlangen-EMN, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. Electronic address: maria.heckel@uk-erlangen.de. 2. Interdisciplinary Palliative Care Unit, III. Department of Medicine, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 3. Department of Palliative Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center CCC Erlangen-EMN, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The quality of dying and death (QOD) influences end-of-life care for patients and their relatives. To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no validated standard instruments for evaluating the QOD of patients in palliative care units (PCUs) in Germany. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate the German version of the multidimensional questionnaire "Quality of Dying and Death" for informal caregivers (QODD-Deutsch-Angehörige [QODD-D-Ang]) and provide a detailed report on its validity and reliability. METHODS: The QODD was forward/backward translated following the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines. Data collected in two German palliative care units (N = 226) with the QODD-D-Ang were used to calculate the QODD-D-Ang total score (TS) and to define reliability and validity, as well as acceptance and burden for informal caregivers. Frequencies, means, and SDs of various patient data related to care and disease were calculated to describe the study population and to look at group differences. RESULTS: The mean TS of 175 participants was 75.72 (range 38-99; minimum 0 to maximum 100; higher scores indicate better QOD). The QODD-D-Ang showed good internal consistency for 27 items (Cronbach's alpha 0.852). Factors extracted by factor analysis could not be usefully interpreted. The TS of the QODD-D-Ang correlated substantially with the Palliative care Outcome Scale (r = 0.540), indicating good convergent validity. The QODD-D-Ang TS was stable for various demographic and clinical dimensions except for the amount of days on which informal caregivers visited patients, and, therefore, provided good discriminant validity. CONCLUSION: Analyses of validity and reliability of the QODD-D-Ang showed satisfactory to good psychometric properties, meaning that the QODD can be recommended for standard implementation in German hospices and palliative care institutions to measure the QOD. Feasibility could be improved by adapting the instrument so that it may be administered with minimal demands on staff. When interpreting the results, it should be kept in mind that the QODD-D-Ang does not measure quality of care but the quality of the dying process as estimated by bereaved relatives.
CONTEXT: The quality of dying and death (QOD) influences end-of-life care for patients and their relatives. To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no validated standard instruments for evaluating the QOD of patients in palliative care units (PCUs) in Germany. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate the German version of the multidimensional questionnaire "Quality of Dying and Death" for informal caregivers (QODD-Deutsch-Angehörige [QODD-D-Ang]) and provide a detailed report on its validity and reliability. METHODS: The QODD was forward/backward translated following the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines. Data collected in two German palliative care units (N = 226) with the QODD-D-Ang were used to calculate the QODD-D-Ang total score (TS) and to define reliability and validity, as well as acceptance and burden for informal caregivers. Frequencies, means, and SDs of various patient data related to care and disease were calculated to describe the study population and to look at group differences. RESULTS: The mean TS of 175 participants was 75.72 (range 38-99; minimum 0 to maximum 100; higher scores indicate better QOD). The QODD-D-Ang showed good internal consistency for 27 items (Cronbach's alpha 0.852). Factors extracted by factor analysis could not be usefully interpreted. The TS of the QODD-D-Ang correlated substantially with the Palliative care Outcome Scale (r = 0.540), indicating good convergent validity. The QODD-D-Ang TS was stable for various demographic and clinical dimensions except for the amount of days on which informal caregivers visited patients, and, therefore, provided good discriminant validity. CONCLUSION: Analyses of validity and reliability of the QODD-D-Ang showed satisfactory to good psychometric properties, meaning that the QODD can be recommended for standard implementation in German hospices and palliative care institutions to measure the QOD. Feasibility could be improved by adapting the instrument so that it may be administered with minimal demands on staff. When interpreting the results, it should be kept in mind that the QODD-D-Ang does not measure quality of care but the quality of the dying process as estimated by bereaved relatives.
Authors: Maria Heckel; Annika R Vogt; Stephanie Stiel; Johannes Radon; Sandra Kurkowski; Swantje Goebel; Christoph Ostgathe; Martin Weber Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-05-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kenneth Mah; Richard A Powell; Carmine Malfitano; Nancy Gikaara; Lesley Chalklin; Sarah Hales; Anne Rydall; Camilla Zimmermann; Faith N Mwangi-Powell; Gary Rodin Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2019-06
Authors: Annika Vogt; Stephanie Stiel; Maria Heckel; Swantje Goebel; Sandra Stephanie Mai; Andreas Seifert; Christina Gerlach; Christoph Ostgathe; Martin Weber Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 3.186