Skip to main content
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
ZOEKEN
MENU 1 2 3 4
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 7/2020

27-02-2020

Psychometric properties of a single-item visual analog scale measuring goals of care in patients with advanced cancer

Auteurs: Sara L. Douglas, Grant Pignatello, Sumin Park, Amy R. Lipson

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of a single-item visual analog scale (VAS) to measure goals of care in patients with advanced cancer.

Methods

Data were obtained from 378 patients with diagnoses of advanced lung, gastrointestinal, or pancreatic cancer. Goal of care was measured at baseline and every 3 months until patient death or completion of the 15-month study period. A single-item VAS ranging from 0 (quality of life is all that matters) to 100 (length of life is all that matters) was used to measure patients’ goals of care for all study subjects; a subsample of subjects also completed the Quality of Life-Length of Life scale which asked patients to select categories of preferences. Test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation) and construct validity (known-groups, convergent, divergent) were evaluated.

Results

At 9 and 12 months, the test–retest reliability for patients with stable symptoms (n = 107) was established with the ICC(1,3) = 0.81, p < .001. Known-groups (r = 0.99, p < .001), convergent (r = 0.78, p < .001), and divergent (r = .06, p = 0.24) validity all demonstrated evidence of good construct validity.

Conclusions

Preliminary psychometric testing for a single-item VAS that measures goals of care in a sample of patients with advanced cancer met standard requirements for reliability and validity. While further testing with a larger sample size is recommended, the tool’s use in the clinical area to assess cancer patients’ goals of care is appropriate. Such a tool could facilitate goals of care discussions in the clinical area.
vorige artikel Validation and calibration of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system: Pediatric PROMIS® Emotional Distress domain item banks, Portuguese version (Brazil/Portugal)
volgende artikel Core patient-reported outcome domains for routine clinical care in chronic pain management: patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspective

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Podotherapeut Totaal

Binnen de bundel kunt u gebruik maken van boeken, tijdschriften, e-learnings, web-tv's en uitlegvideo's. BSL Podotherapeut Totaal is overal toegankelijk; via uw PC, tablet of smartphone.

Meer informatie
Literatuur
1.
Bischoff, K., O’Riordan, D. L., Marks, A. K., Sudore, R., & Pantilat, S. Z. (2018). Care planning for inpatients referred for palliative care consultation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 178(1), 48–54.
2.
Kaplan, S. H., Greenfield, S., & Ware, J. E. (1989). Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Medical Care, 27(3 Suppl), S110–S127. CrossRef
3.
Roter, D. L., Hall, J. A., Kern, D. E., Barker, L. R., Cole, K. A., & Roca, R. P. (1995). Improving physicians’ interviewing skills and reducing patients’ emotional distress. A randomize clinical trial. Archives of Internal Medicine, 155(17), 1877–1884. CrossRef
4.
Bertakis, K. D., Roter, D., & Putnam, S. M. (1991). The relationship of physician medical interview style to patient satisfaction. Journal of Family Practice, 32(2), 175–181. PubMed
5.
Wright, A. A., Zhang, B., Ray, A., Mack, J. W., Trice, E., Balboni, T., et al. (2008). Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300(14), 1665–1673. CrossRef
6.
You, J. J., Fowler, R. A., Heyland, D. K., & Canadian Researchers at the End of Life Network (CARENET). (2014). Just ask: discussing goals of care with patients in hospital with serious illness. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 186(6), 425–432. CrossRef
7.
Balogh, E. P., Ganz, P. A., Murphy, S. B., Nass, S. J., Ferrell, B. R., & Stovall, E. (2011). Patient-centered cancer treatment planning: Improving the quality of oncology care. Summary of an Institute of Medicine workshop. The Oncologist, 16(12), 1800–1805. CrossRef
8.
Douglas, S. L., Lipson, A. R., & Daly, B. J. (2018). Analyzing goals of care in advanced cancer patients and their family caregivers: Evidence-based research. POJ Nursing Practice and Research, 2(1), 1–4. CrossRef
9.
Derry, H. M., Reid, M. C., & Prigerson, H. G. (2019). Advanced cancer patients' understanding of prognostic information: Applying insights from psychological research. Cancer Medicine, 8(9), 4081–4088. PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
11.
Meropol, N. J., Weinfurt, K. P., Burnett, C. B., Balshem, A., Benson, A. B., Castel, L., et al. (2003). Perceptions of patients and physicians regarding phase I cancer clinical trials: implications for physician-patient communication. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21(13), 2589–2596. CrossRef
12.
Sanders, J. J., Curtis, J. R., & Tulsky, J. A. (2018). Achieving goal-concordant care: A conceptual model and approach to measuring serious illness communication and its impact. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 21(S2), S17–S27. CrossRef
13.
Bijur, P. E., Silver, W., & Gallagher, J. (2001). Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Academic Emergency Medicine, 8(12), 1153–1157. CrossRef
14.
Back, A. L. (2017). What enables oncologists to discuss goals of care with their patients? practical ways toward a culture of kindness, transparency, and responsibility. Journal of Oncology Practice, 13(9), 591–593. CrossRef
15.
Rhee, H., Belyea, M., & Mammen, J. (2017). Visual analogue scale (VAS) as a monitoring tool for daily changes in asthma symptoms in adolescents: A prospective study. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, 13, 24–31. CrossRef
16.
Haley, K. L., Womack, J. L., Harmon, T. G., & Williams, S. W. (2015). Visual analog rating of mood by people with aphasia. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 22(4), 239–245. CrossRef
17.
Heller, G. Z., Manuguerra, M., & Chow, R. (2016). How to analyze the visual analogue scale: myths, truths and clinical relevance. Scandinavian Journal of Pain, 13, 67–75. CrossRef
18.
de Boer, A. G., van Lanschot, J. J., Stalmeier, P. F., van Sandick, J. W., Hulscher, J. B., de Haes, J. C., et al. (2004). Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 311–320. CrossRef
19.
Stanek, S. (2017). Goals of care: a concept clarification. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(6), 1302–1314. CrossRef
20.
Meropol, N. J., Egleston, B. L., Buzaglo, J. S., Benson, B., Cegala, D. J., Diefenbach, M. A., et al. (2008). Cancer patient preferences for quality and length of life. Cancer, 113(12), 3459–3466. CrossRef
21.
Weinfurt, K. P., Castel, L. D., Li, Y., Sulmasy, D. P., Balshem, A. M., Benson, A. B., et al. (2003). The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from phase I clinical trials. Cancer, 98(1), 166–175. CrossRef
22.
Winter, L., & Parks, S. M. (2008). Family discord and proxy decision makers' end-of-life treatment decisions. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 11(8), 1109–1114. CrossRef
23.
Winter, L. (2013). Patient values and preferences for end of life treatments: Are values better predictors than a living will? Journal of Palliative Medicine, 16(4), 362–368. CrossRef
24.
Hui, D., & Bruera, E. (2017). The edmonton symptom assessment system 25 years later: Past, present and future developments. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 53(3), 630–643. CrossRef
25.
Carvaja, A., Centeno, C., Watson, R., & Bruera, E. (2011). A comprehensive study of psychometric properties of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) in Spanish advanced cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 47(12), 1863–1872. CrossRef
26.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health.
27.
Amit, M., Hutcheson, K., Zaveri, J., Lewin, J., Kupferman, M. E., Hessel, A. C., et al. (2019). Patient-reported outcomes of symptom burden in patients receiving surgical or nonsurgical treatment for low-intermediate risk oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a comparative analysis of a prospective registry. Oral Oncology, 91, 13–20. CrossRef
28.
Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (2005). Measurement in nursing and health research (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.
29.
DeVon, H. A., Block, M. E., Moyle-Wright, P., Ernst, D. M., Hayden, S. J., Lazzara, D. J., et al. (2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39(2), 155–164. CrossRef
30.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BioMedCentral Medical Research Methodology, 10, 22. CrossRef
31.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. CrossRef
32.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33.
Perron, B., & Gillespie, D. (2015). Key concepts in measurement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
34.
Sendlbeck, M., Araujo, E. G., Schett, G., & Englbrecht, M. (2015). Psychometric properties of three single-item pain scales in patients with rheumatoid arthritis seen during routine clinical care: A comparative perspective on construct validity, reproducibility and internal responsiveness. Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases Open, 1, 1–9.
35.
Yen, M., & Lo, L. H. (2002). Examining test-retest reliability: An intra-class correlation approach. Nursing Research, 51(1), 59–62. CrossRef
36.
Gang, C., Taylor, P. A., Haller, S., Kircanski, K., Stoddard, J., Pine, D. S., et al. (2018). Intraclass correlation: Improved modeling approaches and applications for neuroimaging. Human Brain Mapping, 39(3), 1187–1206. CrossRef
37.
Sandberg, A., Cider, Å., Jivegård, L., Nordanstig, J., Wittboldt, S., & Bäck, M. (2020). Test-retest reliability, agreement, and minimal detectable change in the 6-minute walk test in patients with intermittent claudication. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 71(1), 197–203. CrossRef
38.
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). Cracking the code: providing insight into the fundamentals of research and evidence-based practice—A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. CrossRef
39.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2005). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.
40.
Paiva, C. E., Barroso, E. M., Carneseca, E. C., Souza, C. P., dos Santos, F. T., Mendoza Lopez, R. V., et al. (2014). A critical analysis of test-retest reliability in instrument validation studies of cancer patients under palliative care: a systematic review. BioMedCentral Medical Research Methodology, 14, 8–18. CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Psychometric properties of a single-item visual analog scale measuring goals of care in patients with advanced cancer
Auteurs
Sara L. Douglas
Grant Pignatello
Sumin Park
Amy R. Lipson
Publicatiedatum
27-02-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02458-w

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2020

Quality of Life Research 7/2020 Naar de uitgave

Review

Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods

OriginalPaper

Predictors of health-related quality of life among military HIV-infected individuals

OriginalPaper

Socioeconomic burden and quality of life in meningioma patients

OriginalPaper

Validation and calibration of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system: Pediatric PROMIS® Emotional Distress domain item banks, Portuguese version (Brazil/Portugal)

OriginalPaper

Evaluation of quality of life and its influencing factors after transplantation of leukemia patients based on SF-36 score: a cohort study

OriginalPaper

Exploring health state utility values of parents of children with a serious illness

Version: 0.1964.0