Lisa Scarton1, Sungho Oh1, Ashley Sylvera1, Ralph Lamonge1, Yingwei Yao1, Harvey Chochinov2,3, George Fitchett4, George Handzo5, Linda Emanuel6, Diana Wilkie1. 1. 1 University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, FL, USA. 2. 2 Department of Psychiatry, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 3. 3 Manitoba Palliative Care Research Unit, Cancer Care Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 4. 4 Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. 5 HealthCare Chaplaincy Network, NY, USA. 6. 6 Buehler Center on Health, Aging & Society Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feasibility of dignity therapy (DT) is well established in palliative care. Evidence of its efficacy, however, has been inconsistent and may stem from DT's primary effects differing from the outcomes measured in previous studies. We proposed that DT effects were in the spiritual domain and created a new outcome measure, Dignity Impact Scale (DIS), from items previously used in a large randomized controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this secondary analysis study was to examine properties of a new measure of dignity impact. DESIGN: Using the DIS, we conducted reanalysis of posttest data from a large 3-arm, multi-site RCT study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Participants were receiving hospice/palliative care (n = 326, 50.6% female, mean age = 65.1 years, 89.3% white, all with a terminal illness with 6 months or less life expectancy). They had been randomized to standard palliative care (n = 111), client-centered care (n = 107), or DT (n = 108). MEASUREMENT: The 7-item DIS was derived from selected items in a posttest DT Patient Feedback Questionnaire. The DIS had strong internal consistency (α = 0.85). RESULTS: The DT group mean DIS score (21.4 ± 5.0) was significantly higher than the usual care group mean score (17.7 ± 5.5; t = 5.2, df = 216, P < .001) and a client-centered intervention group mean score (17.9 ± 4.9; t = 5.2, df = 213, P < .001). CONCLUSION: We found that, compared to both other groups, patients who received DT reported significantly higher DIS ratings, which is consistent with the DT focus on meaning-making, preparation for death, and life completion tasks. We propose that the DIS be used as the primary outcome measure in evaluating the effects of DT.
BACKGROUND: Feasibility of dignity therapy (DT) is well established in palliative care. Evidence of its efficacy, however, has been inconsistent and may stem from DT's primary effects differing from the outcomes measured in previous studies. We proposed that DT effects were in the spiritual domain and created a new outcome measure, Dignity Impact Scale (DIS), from items previously used in a large randomized controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this secondary analysis study was to examine properties of a new measure of dignity impact. DESIGN: Using the DIS, we conducted reanalysis of posttest data from a large 3-arm, multi-site RCT study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Participants were receiving hospice/palliative care (n = 326, 50.6% female, mean age = 65.1 years, 89.3% white, all with a terminal illness with 6 months or less life expectancy). They had been randomized to standard palliative care (n = 111), client-centered care (n = 107), or DT (n = 108). MEASUREMENT: The 7-item DIS was derived from selected items in a posttest DT Patient Feedback Questionnaire. The DIS had strong internal consistency (α = 0.85). RESULTS: The DT group mean DIS score (21.4 ± 5.0) was significantly higher than the usual care group mean score (17.7 ± 5.5; t = 5.2, df = 216, P < .001) and a client-centered intervention group mean score (17.9 ± 4.9; t = 5.2, df = 213, P < .001). CONCLUSION: We found that, compared to both other groups, patients who received DT reported significantly higher DIS ratings, which is consistent with the DT focus on meaning-making, preparation for death, and life completion tasks. We propose that the DIS be used as the primary outcome measure in evaluating the effects of DT.
Authors: Harvey Max Chochinov; Thomas Hack; Thomas Hassard; Linda J Kristjanson; Susan McClement; Mike Harlos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harvey Max Chochinov; Linda J Kristjanson; William Breitbart; Susan McClement; Thomas F Hack; Tom Hassard; Mike Harlos Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Lise J Houmann; Harvey M Chochinov; Linda J Kristjanson; Morten Aa Petersen; Mogens Groenvold Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Steven D Passik; Kenneth L Kirsh; Suzanne Leibee; Lisa S Kaplan; Celia Love; Ellen Napier; Deborah Burton; Robert Sprang Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2004-06
Authors: Lise J Houmann; Susan Rydahl-Hansen; Harvey M Chochinov; Linda J Kristjanson; Mogens Groenvold Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Virginia Samuels; Tasha M Schoppee; Amelia Greenlee; Destiny Gordon; Stacey Jean; Valandrea Smith; Tyra Reed; Sheri Kittelson; Tammie Quest; Sean O'Mahony; Josh Hauser; Marvin O Delgado Guay; Michael W Rabow; Linda Emanuel; George Fitchett; George Handzo; Harvey Max Chochinov; Yingwei Yao; Diana J Wilkie Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 2.090