Simone Veronese1, Elisa Rabitti2, Massimo Costantini3, Alessandro Valle1, Irene Higginson4. 1. Fondazione FARO onlus, Torino, Italy. 2. Psycho-Oncology Unit, Azienda USL di Reggio Emilia-IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 3. Scientific Directorate, Azienda USL di Reggio Emilia-IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 4. Cicely Saunders Institute for Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcome measurement is fundamental to assess needs and priority of care in palliative care settings. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) was developed from earlier versions of this tool. Its use is encouraged to ameliorate the assessment of individual outcomes in palliative care settings. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt IPOS into Italian, and explore its face and content validity. METHODS: After forward-backward translation, a qualitative study explored the views of and cognitive processes used by respondents. We conducted individual semi structured interviews with 21 patients admitted to two palliative care services, from hospitals, hospices and the community, and focus groups with 12 professionals working in multidisciplinary palliative care teams and used thematic analysis. The results were integrated in a final audit, including the project team and the original POS developers, to refine the final format of the tool. RESULTS: We conducted 21 face to face cognitive interviews with patients, and 2 focus groups with 14 professionals. Patients and professionals felt content and format of IPOS appropriate and feasible, and not burdensome. Some layout problems were raised leading to adaptation. Main issues regarded: clarifying the meaning of choices and some cultural interpretation of some questions and response options and interpretation of some instructions. We proposed using some new terms as more appropriate and comprehensive in our context, such as replacing the term "family" with "dear ones". The items that appeared unchanged from the previously validated Italian POS were left unmodified to maintain coherence. CONCLUSIONS: The Italian IPOS, in its four versions directed to patients or staff and with a recall period of 3 or 7 days, has face and content validity for use in clinical settings and is ready for further psychometric and clinimetric validation.
BACKGROUND: Outcome measurement is fundamental to assess needs and priority of care in palliative care settings. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) was developed from earlier versions of this tool. Its use is encouraged to ameliorate the assessment of individual outcomes in palliative care settings. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt IPOS into Italian, and explore its face and content validity. METHODS: After forward-backward translation, a qualitative study explored the views of and cognitive processes used by respondents. We conducted individual semi structured interviews with 21 patients admitted to two palliative care services, from hospitals, hospices and the community, and focus groups with 12 professionals working in multidisciplinary palliative care teams and used thematic analysis. The results were integrated in a final audit, including the project team and the original POS developers, to refine the final format of the tool. RESULTS: We conducted 21 face to face cognitive interviews with patients, and 2 focus groups with 14 professionals. Patients and professionals felt content and format of IPOS appropriate and feasible, and not burdensome. Some layout problems were raised leading to adaptation. Main issues regarded: clarifying the meaning of choices and some cultural interpretation of some questions and response options and interpretation of some instructions. We proposed using some new terms as more appropriate and comprehensive in our context, such as replacing the term "family" with "dear ones". The items that appeared unchanged from the previously validated Italian POS were left unmodified to maintain coherence. CONCLUSIONS: The Italian IPOS, in its four versions directed to patients or staff and with a recall period of 3 or 7 days, has face and content validity for use in clinical settings and is ready for further psychometric and clinimetric validation.
Authors: Wei Gao; Vincent Crosby; Andrew Wilcock; Rachael Burman; Eli Silber; Nilay Hepgul; K Ray Chaudhuri; Irene J Higginson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eva K Schildmann; E Iris Groeneveld; Johannes Denzel; Alice Brown; Florian Bernhardt; Katharine Bailey; Ping Guo; Christina Ramsenthaler; Natasha Lovell; Irene J Higginson; Claudia Bausewein; Fliss Em Murtagh Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Christina Gerlach; Katherine Taylor; Marion Ferner; Markus Munder; Martin Weber; Christina Ramsenthaler Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 4.430