Maria Heckel1, Sonja Bussmann2, Stephanie Stiel3, Christoph Ostgathe1, Martin Weber2. 1. Department of Palliative Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center CCC Erlangen-EMN, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany. 2. Interdisciplinary Palliative Care Unit, III. Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 3. Department of Palliative Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center CCC Erlangen-EMN, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany stephanie.stiel@uk-erlangen.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate the Quality of Dying and Death (QoDD) instrument for health professionals (QoDD-D-MA) and to test its feasibility in 2 German palliative care units (PCUs). METHODS: The QoDD was translated from English to German and then retranslated following European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines. Data were collected in 2 German PCUs to calculate aspects of validity and reliability. RESULTS: Mean total score was 83.05 (range 49-100; N = 232). The QoDD-D-MA showed satisfactory psychometric properties, Cronbach α = .830; interrater reliability r = .245 (P < .01). The QoDD-D-MA was independent of patients' demographic and clinical aspects. Some challenges occurred when applying the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Feasibility could be improved by adapting the QoDD-D-MA to create a self-assessment version and finding a solution for items that result in many missing data. Future research should validate the QoDD-D-MA in other care settings.
PURPOSE: To validate the Quality of Dying and Death (QoDD) instrument for health professionals (QoDD-D-MA) and to test its feasibility in 2 German palliative care units (PCUs). METHODS: The QoDD was translated from English to German and then retranslated following European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines. Data were collected in 2 German PCUs to calculate aspects of validity and reliability. RESULTS: Mean total score was 83.05 (range 49-100; N = 232). The QoDD-D-MA showed satisfactory psychometric properties, Cronbach α = .830; interrater reliability r = .245 (P < .01). The QoDD-D-MA was independent of patients' demographic and clinical aspects. Some challenges occurred when applying the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Feasibility could be improved by adapting the QoDD-D-MA to create a self-assessment version and finding a solution for items that result in many missing data. Future research should validate the QoDD-D-MA in other care settings.
Authors: Valerie Bailey; Dorothy M Beke; Jennifer M Snaman; Faraz Alizadeh; Sarah Goldberg; Melissa Smith-Parrish; Kimberlee Gauvreau; Elizabeth D Blume; Katie M Moynihan Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-05-02
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