Cargando…

Relationship between three palliative care outcome scales

BACKGROUND: Various scales have been used to assess palliative outcomes. But measurement can still be problematic and core components of measures have not been identified. This study aimed to determine the relationships between, and factorial structure of, three widely used scales among advanced can...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Higginson, Irene J, Donaldson, Nora
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15566627
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-68
_version_ 1782122067093618688
author Higginson, Irene J
Donaldson, Nora
author_facet Higginson, Irene J
Donaldson, Nora
author_sort Higginson, Irene J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Various scales have been used to assess palliative outcomes. But measurement can still be problematic and core components of measures have not been identified. This study aimed to determine the relationships between, and factorial structure of, three widely used scales among advanced cancer patients. METHODS: Patients were recruited who received home or hospital palliative care services in the south of England. Hope, quality of life and palliative outcomes were assessed by patients in face to face interviews, using three previously established scales – a generic measure (EQoL), a palliative care specific measure (POS) and a measure of hope (Herth Hope Index). Analysis comprised: exploratory factor analysis of each individual scale, and all scales combined, and confirmatory factor analysis for model building and validation. RESULTS: Of 171 patients identified, 140 (81%) consented and completed first interviews; mean age was 71 years, 54% were women, 132 had cancer. In exploratory analysis of individual means, three out of the five factors in the EQoL explained 75% of its variability, four out of the 10 factors in POS explained 63% of its variability, and in the Hope Index, nine out of the 12 items explained 69% of its variability. When exploring the relative factorial structure of all three scales, five factors explained 56% of total combined variability. Confirmatory analysis reduced this to a model with four factors – self-sufficiency, positivity, symptoms and spiritual. Removal of the spiritual factor left a model with an improved goodness of fit and a measure with 11 items. CONCLUSION: We identified three factors which are important outcomes and would be simple to measure in clinical practice and research.
format Text
id pubmed-539243
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-5392432004-12-24 Relationship between three palliative care outcome scales Higginson, Irene J Donaldson, Nora Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Various scales have been used to assess palliative outcomes. But measurement can still be problematic and core components of measures have not been identified. This study aimed to determine the relationships between, and factorial structure of, three widely used scales among advanced cancer patients. METHODS: Patients were recruited who received home or hospital palliative care services in the south of England. Hope, quality of life and palliative outcomes were assessed by patients in face to face interviews, using three previously established scales – a generic measure (EQoL), a palliative care specific measure (POS) and a measure of hope (Herth Hope Index). Analysis comprised: exploratory factor analysis of each individual scale, and all scales combined, and confirmatory factor analysis for model building and validation. RESULTS: Of 171 patients identified, 140 (81%) consented and completed first interviews; mean age was 71 years, 54% were women, 132 had cancer. In exploratory analysis of individual means, three out of the five factors in the EQoL explained 75% of its variability, four out of the 10 factors in POS explained 63% of its variability, and in the Hope Index, nine out of the 12 items explained 69% of its variability. When exploring the relative factorial structure of all three scales, five factors explained 56% of total combined variability. Confirmatory analysis reduced this to a model with four factors – self-sufficiency, positivity, symptoms and spiritual. Removal of the spiritual factor left a model with an improved goodness of fit and a measure with 11 items. CONCLUSION: We identified three factors which are important outcomes and would be simple to measure in clinical practice and research. BioMed Central 2004-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC539243/ /pubmed/15566627 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-68 Text en Copyright © 2004 Higginson and Donaldson; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Higginson, Irene J
Donaldson, Nora
Relationship between three palliative care outcome scales
title Relationship between three palliative care outcome scales
title_full Relationship between three palliative care outcome scales
title_fullStr Relationship between three palliative care outcome scales
title_full_unstemmed Relationship between three palliative care outcome scales
title_short Relationship between three palliative care outcome scales
title_sort relationship between three palliative care outcome scales
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15566627
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-68
work_keys_str_mv AT higginsonirenej relationshipbetweenthreepalliativecareoutcomescales
AT donaldsonnora relationshipbetweenthreepalliativecareoutcomescales