Shane Sinclair1,2,3, Priya Jaggi4,5, Thomas F Hack6,7,8, Lara Russell9,10, Susan E McClement6, Lena Cuthbertson11, Lucy E Selman12, Carlo Leget13. 1. Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. sinclair@ucalgary.ca. 2. Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. sinclair@ucalgary.ca. 3. Compassion Research Lab, Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. sinclair@ucalgary.ca. 4. Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. 5. Compassion Research Lab, Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. 6. College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 89 Curry Place, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada. 7. Psychosocial Oncology and Cancer Nursing Research, IH Asper Clinical Research Institute, 369 Taché Ave, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada. 8. Research Institute in Oncology and Hematology, CancerCare Manitoba, 4005E - 675 McDermot, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0V9, Canada. 9. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, 588, 1081Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada. 10. Trinity Western University, 7600 Glover Road, Langley, BC, V2Y 1Y1, Canada. 11. Office of Patient-Centred Measurement, British Columbia Ministry of Health, C/O Providence Health Care, 1190 Hornby Street, 3rd Floor, 341F, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2K5, Canada. 12. Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. 13. University of Humanistic Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, 3512 HD, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although compassionate care is considered a cornerstone of quality palliative care, there is a paucity of valid and reliable measures to study, assess, and evaluate how patients experience compassion/compassionate care in their care. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop a patient-reported compassion measure for use in research and clinical practice with established content-related validity evidence for the items, question stems, and response scale. METHODS: Content validation for an initial 109 items was conducted through a two-round modified Delphi technique, followed by cognitive interviews with patients. A panel of international Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and a Patient Advisory Group (PAG) assessed the items for their relevancy to their associated domain of compassion, yielding an Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI), which was used to determine content modifications. The SMEs and the PAG also provided narrative feedback on the clarity, flow, and wording of the instructions, questions, and response scale, with items being modified accordingly. Cognitive interviews were conducted with 16 patients to further assess the clarity, comprehensibility, and readability of each item within the revised item pool. RESULTS: The first round of the Delphi review produced an overall CVI of 72% among SMEs and 80% among the PAG for the 109 items. Delphi panelists then reviewed a revised measure containing 84 items, generating an overall CVI of 84% for SMEs and 86% for the PAG. Sixty-eight items underwent further testing via cognitive interviews with patients, resulting in an additional 14 items being removed. CONCLUSIONS: Having established this initial validity evidence, further testing to assess internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure, and relationships to other variables is required to produce the first valid, reliable, and clinically informed patient-reported measure of compassion.
BACKGROUND: Although compassionate care is considered a cornerstone of quality palliative care, there is a paucity of valid and reliable measures to study, assess, and evaluate how patients experience compassion/compassionate care in their care. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop a patient-reported compassion measure for use in research and clinical practice with established content-related validity evidence for the items, question stems, and response scale. METHODS: Content validation for an initial 109 items was conducted through a two-round modified Delphi technique, followed by cognitive interviews with patients. A panel of international Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and a Patient Advisory Group (PAG) assessed the items for their relevancy to their associated domain of compassion, yielding an Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI), which was used to determine content modifications. The SMEs and the PAG also provided narrative feedback on the clarity, flow, and wording of the instructions, questions, and response scale, with items being modified accordingly. Cognitive interviews were conducted with 16 patients to further assess the clarity, comprehensibility, and readability of each item within the revised item pool. RESULTS: The first round of the Delphi review produced an overall CVI of 72% among SMEs and 80% among the PAG for the 109 items. Delphi panelists then reviewed a revised measure containing 84 items, generating an overall CVI of 84% for SMEs and 86% for the PAG. Sixty-eight items underwent further testing via cognitive interviews with patients, resulting in an additional 14 items being removed. CONCLUSIONS: Having established this initial validity evidence, further testing to assess internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure, and relationships to other variables is required to produce the first valid, reliable, and clinically informed patient-reported measure of compassion.
Authors: Elizabeth J Kirkham; Catherine J Crompton; Matthew H Iveson; Iona Beange; Andrew M McIntosh; Sue Fletcher-Watson Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 4.157