New Search

Export article

Comparison between patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes: Validation of the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for staff

Hiroki Sakurai, Mitsunori Miyashita, Tatsuya Morita, Akemi Shirado Naito, Shingo Miyamoto, Hiroyuki Otani, Junko Nozato, Naosuke Yokomichi, Kengo Imai, Ai Oishi,
Show More
Palliative and Supportive Care pp 1-7; doi:10.1017/s1478951521000018

Abstract: Objectives The goal of palliative and supportive care is to improve patients’ quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the gold standard for the assessment of QoL and symptoms; however, when self-reporting is complicated, PROMs are often substituted with proxy-reported outcome measures, such as clinician-reported outcome measures. The objective of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) for staff (IPOS-Staff). Methods This multicenter, cross-sectional observational study was conducted concurrently with the validation of the IPOS for patients (IPOS-Patient). Japanese adult patients with cancer and their staff were recruited. We assessed the characteristics of the patients and staff members, missing values, prevalence, and total IPOS scores. For the analysis of criterion validity, intra-rater, and inter-rater reliability, we calculated intraclass correlations (ICCs). Results One hundred and forty-three patients completed the IPOS-Patient, and 79 medical staff members completed the IPOS-Staff. The most common missing values from IPOS-Staff were Family Anxiety (3.5%) and Sharing Feelings (3.5%). Over half of the patients scored themselves moderate or worse for Poor Mobility, Anxiety, and Family Anxiety, while staff members scored patients moderate or worse for Weakness, Anxiety, and Family Anxiety. For criterion validity (patient–staff agreement) as well as intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, ICCs ranged from 0.114 (Sharing Feelings) to 0.826 (Nausea), 0.720 (Anxiety) to 0.933 (Nausea), and −0.038 (Practical Problems) to 0.830 (Nausea), respectively. Significance of results The IPOS-Staff is easy to respond to; it has fair validity and reliability for physical items but poor for psycho-social items. By defining the context and objectives of its use and interpretation, the IPOS-Staff can be a useful tool for measuring outcomes in adult patients with cancer who cannot complete self-evaluations.
Keywords: Cancer / Clinician-reported outcome measures / Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale / Palliative care

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

Share this article

Click here to see the statistics on "Palliative and Supportive Care" .
References (31)
    Back to Top Top