Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Apr 3;23(1):89.
doi: 10.1186/s12904-024-01395-6.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of point-of-care outcome assessment tools in Chinese palliative care clinical practice

Affiliations

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of point-of-care outcome assessment tools in Chinese palliative care clinical practice

Yunyun Dai et al. BMC Palliat Care. .

Abstract

Background: A standardized national approach to routinely assessing palliative care patients helps improve patient outcomes. However, a quality improvement program-based on person centered outcomes within palliative care is lacking in Mainland China. The well-established Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) national model improves palliative care quality. This study aimed to culturally adapt and validate three measures that form part of the PCOC program for palliative care clinical practice in China: The PCOC Symptom Assessment Scale (PCOC SAS), Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale (PCPSS), Palliative Care Phase.

Methods: A study was conducted on cross-cultural adaptation and validation of PCOC SAS, PCPSS and Palliative Care Phase, involving translation methods, cognitive interviewing, and psychometric testing through paired assessments.

Results: Cross-cultural adaptation highlighted the need to strengthen the link between the patient's care plan and the outcome measures to improve outcomes, and the concept of distress in PCOC SAS. Analysis of 368 paired assessments (n = 135 inpatients, 22 clinicians) demonstrated that the PCOC SAS and PCPSS had good and acceptable coherence (Cronbach's a = 0.85, 0.75 respectively). Palliative Care Phase detected patients' urgent needs. PCOC SAS and PCPSS showed fair discriminant and concurrent validity. Inter-rater reliability was fair for Palliative Care Phase (k = 0.31) and PCPSS (k = 0.23-0.30), except for PCPSS-pain, which was moderate (k = 0.53).

Conclusions: The Chinese version of PCOC SAS, PCPSS, and Palliative Care Phase can be used to assess outcomes as part of routine clinical practice in Mainland China. Comprehensive clinical education regarding the assessment tools is necessary to help improve the inter-rater reliability.

Keywords: Palliative care; Palliative care phase; Palliative care problem severity score; Point of care outcomes assessment; Reliability; Symptom assessment scale; Validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Currow DC, Allingham S, Yates P, Johnson C, Clark K, Eagar K. Improving national hospice/palliative care service symptom outcomes systematically through point-of-care data collection, structured feedback and benchmarking. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:307–15. doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2351-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Spencer A, Horridge K, Downs D. Empowering clinical data collection at the point of care. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(9):815–7. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307972. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bain CA, Bucknall T, Weir-Phyland J. A clinical quality feedback loop supported by mobile point-of-care (POC) data collection. 2013.
    1. Richardson A, Medina J, Brown V, Sitzia J. Patients’ needs assessment in cancer care: a review of assessment tools. Support Care Cancer. 2007;15(10):1125–44. doi: 10.1007/s00520-006-0205-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Currow DC, Eagar K, Aoun S, Fildes D, Yates P, Kristjanson LJ. Is it feasible and desirable to collect voluntarily quality and outcome data nationally in palliative oncology care? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(23):3853–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.5761. - DOI - PubMed