Cargando…

Towards an assessment instrument for suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions: assessing cognitive validity

BACKGROUND: Unbearable suffering is a key criterion in legally granting patients' euthanasia requests in Belgium yet a generally accepted definition of unbearable suffering remains elusive. The ability to understand and assess unbearable suffering is essential, particularly in patients with psy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Verhofstadt, Monica, Chambaere, Kenneth, Leontjevas, Roeslan, Peters, Gjalt-Jorn Ygram
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31530306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2019.25
_version_ 1783411606316646400
author Verhofstadt, Monica
Chambaere, Kenneth
Leontjevas, Roeslan
Peters, Gjalt-Jorn Ygram
author_facet Verhofstadt, Monica
Chambaere, Kenneth
Leontjevas, Roeslan
Peters, Gjalt-Jorn Ygram
author_sort Verhofstadt, Monica
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Unbearable suffering is a key criterion in legally granting patients' euthanasia requests in Belgium yet a generally accepted definition of unbearable suffering remains elusive. The ability to understand and assess unbearable suffering is essential, particularly in patients with psychiatric conditions, as the underlying causes of these conditions are not always apparent. To enable research into when and why suffering experiences incite patients with psychiatric conditions to request euthanasia, and to help explore preventive and curative perspectives, the development of an assessment instrument is needed. AIMS: To improve the cognitive validity of a large initial item pool used to assess the nature and extent of suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions. METHOD: Cognitive validity was established via two rounds of cognitive interviews with patients with psychiatric conditions with (n = 9) and without (n = 5) euthanasia requests. RESULTS: During the first round of cognitive interviews, a variety of issues relating to content, form and language were reported and aspects that were missing were identified. During the second round, the items that had been amended were perceived as sufficiently easily to understand, sensitive to delicate nuances, comprehensive and easy to answer accurately. Neither research topic nor method were perceived as emotionally strenuous, but instead as positive, relevant, comforting and valuable. CONCLUSIONS: This research resulted in an item pool that covers the concept of suffering more adequately and comprehensively. Further research endeavours should examine potential differences in suffering experiences over time and in patients with psychiatric conditions with and without euthanasia requests. The appreciation patients demonstrated regarding their ability to speak extensively and openly about their suffering and wish to die further supports the need to allow patients to speak freely and honestly during consultations. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS: None.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6469232
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64692322019-04-24 Towards an assessment instrument for suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions: assessing cognitive validity Verhofstadt, Monica Chambaere, Kenneth Leontjevas, Roeslan Peters, Gjalt-Jorn Ygram BJPsych Open Papers BACKGROUND: Unbearable suffering is a key criterion in legally granting patients' euthanasia requests in Belgium yet a generally accepted definition of unbearable suffering remains elusive. The ability to understand and assess unbearable suffering is essential, particularly in patients with psychiatric conditions, as the underlying causes of these conditions are not always apparent. To enable research into when and why suffering experiences incite patients with psychiatric conditions to request euthanasia, and to help explore preventive and curative perspectives, the development of an assessment instrument is needed. AIMS: To improve the cognitive validity of a large initial item pool used to assess the nature and extent of suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions. METHOD: Cognitive validity was established via two rounds of cognitive interviews with patients with psychiatric conditions with (n = 9) and without (n = 5) euthanasia requests. RESULTS: During the first round of cognitive interviews, a variety of issues relating to content, form and language were reported and aspects that were missing were identified. During the second round, the items that had been amended were perceived as sufficiently easily to understand, sensitive to delicate nuances, comprehensive and easy to answer accurately. Neither research topic nor method were perceived as emotionally strenuous, but instead as positive, relevant, comforting and valuable. CONCLUSIONS: This research resulted in an item pool that covers the concept of suffering more adequately and comprehensively. Further research endeavours should examine potential differences in suffering experiences over time and in patients with psychiatric conditions with and without euthanasia requests. The appreciation patients demonstrated regarding their ability to speak extensively and openly about their suffering and wish to die further supports the need to allow patients to speak freely and honestly during consultations. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS: None. Cambridge University Press 2019-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6469232/ /pubmed/31530306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2019.25 Text en © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
spellingShingle Papers
Verhofstadt, Monica
Chambaere, Kenneth
Leontjevas, Roeslan
Peters, Gjalt-Jorn Ygram
Towards an assessment instrument for suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions: assessing cognitive validity
title Towards an assessment instrument for suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions: assessing cognitive validity
title_full Towards an assessment instrument for suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions: assessing cognitive validity
title_fullStr Towards an assessment instrument for suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions: assessing cognitive validity
title_full_unstemmed Towards an assessment instrument for suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions: assessing cognitive validity
title_short Towards an assessment instrument for suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions: assessing cognitive validity
title_sort towards an assessment instrument for suffering in patients with psychiatric conditions: assessing cognitive validity
topic Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31530306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2019.25
work_keys_str_mv AT verhofstadtmonica towardsanassessmentinstrumentforsufferinginpatientswithpsychiatricconditionsassessingcognitivevalidity
AT chambaerekenneth towardsanassessmentinstrumentforsufferinginpatientswithpsychiatricconditionsassessingcognitivevalidity
AT leontjevasroeslan towardsanassessmentinstrumentforsufferinginpatientswithpsychiatricconditionsassessingcognitivevalidity
AT petersgjaltjornygram towardsanassessmentinstrumentforsufferinginpatientswithpsychiatricconditionsassessingcognitivevalidity