Validation of the French Version of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale

Palliative care needs among outpatient adults with cystic fibrosis: Baseline data from the Improving Life with CF trial

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the burden of illness experienced by people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) since the advent of CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapies. Studies that characterize the nature of illness burden are needed to inform the development and implementation of palliative care programs that can serve this population and address quality of life concerns.

METHODS

Adults with CF treated at five U.S. CF centers were surveyed to obtain baseline data for the Improving Life with CF primary palliative care implementation trial. Consenting patients completed the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), a multidimensional measure of unmet needs for palliative care. Sociodemographic and clinical information was also obtained. The associations among these variables were examined through bivariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Among 256 adults, the most distressing symptoms included not feeling "at peace", communication difficulties with family/friends, anxiety over illness or its treatment, and a lack of energy. In the multivariable analyses, CFTR modulator use was associated with lower IPOS total and physical symptoms scores; female sex and increased hospitalizations were associated with higher scores. Increased age and history of distal intestinal obstructive syndrome were associated with higher IPOS physical symptoms scores.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings illuminate the nature of illness burden for pwCF in the era of CFTR modulator therapies. Although illness burden is positively affected by modulator therapy, there is a continuing need for palliative care to address physical, emotional, and spiritual distress, and the communication and practical needs experienced by adults with CF.

Validity and reliability of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for non-cancer patients

AIM

This study assessed the validity and reliability of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for non-cancer patients.

METHODS

We recruited 223 non-cancer patients receiving palliative care and their healthcare providers (222) across two home care facilities and two hospitals for a cross-sectional study. We assessed the construct validity and known-group validity of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale. The weighted kappa and interclass correlation coefficients were assessed to ascertain reliability.

RESULTS

The scale scores were significantly higher for the 'non-stable' group (worsening condition group) measured in the palliative care phase than for the 'stable' group (P < 0.001). Regarding validity, Spearman's correlations between similar items on the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System ranged from 0.61 to 0.94. Regarding reliability, the weighted kappa coefficients ranged from 0.53 to 0.81 for patients and from 0.58 to 0.90 for healthcare providers. For inter-rater reliability between patients and healthcare providers, the weighted kappa coefficients for each item ranged from 0.03 to 0.42.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the validity and reliability of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for non-cancer patients requiring palliative care. However, the inter-rater reliability indicates poor agreement between the assessments of patients and healthcare providers. This highlights the discrepancies between both their assessments and the importance of the patient's assessment. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2023; ••: ••-••.

Giving and receiving thanks: a mixed methods pilot study of a gratitude intervention for palliative patients and their carers

BACKGROUND

Psychological research examining the nature and workings of gratitude has burgeoned over the past two decades. However, few studies have considered gratitude in the palliative care context. Based on an exploratory study which found that gratitude was correlated with better quality of life and less psychological distress in palliative patients, we designed and piloted a gratitude intervention where palliative patients and a carer of their choice wrote and shared a gratitude letter with each other. The aims of this study are to establish the feasibility and acceptability of our gratitude intervention and provide a preliminary assessment of its effects.

METHODS

This pilot intervention study adopted a mixed-methods, concurrent nested, pre-post evaluation design. To assess the intervention's effects, we employed quantitative questionnaires on quality of life, quality of relationship, psychological distress, and subjective burden, as well as semi-structured interviews. To assess feasibility, we considered patients and carers' eligibility, participation and attrition rates, reasons for refusal to participate, appropriateness of intervention timeframe, modalities of participation, and barriers and facilitators. Acceptability was assessed through post-intervention satisfaction questionnaires.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine participants completed the intervention and twenty-nine participated in interviews. We did not find any statistically significant pre/post intervention changes for patients, but found significant decrease in psychological distress for carers in terms of depression (median = 3 at T0, 1.5 at T1, p = .034) and total score (median = 13 at T0, 7.5 at T1, p = .041). Thematic analysis of interviews indicates that overall, the intervention had: (1) multiple positive outcomes for over a third of interviewees, in the form of positive emotional, cognitive, and relational effects; (2) single positive outcomes for nearly half of interviewees, who experienced emotional or cognitive effects; (3) no effect on two patients; and (4) negative emotional effects on two patients. Feasibility and acceptability indicators suggest that the intervention was well received by participants, and that it should adopt flexible modalities (e.g. writing or dictating a gratitude message) to ensure that it is feasible and adapted to individual needs and preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger scale deployment and evaluation of the gratitude intervention, including a control group, is warranted in order to have a more reliable evaluation of its effectiveness in palliative care.

Screening versus multidimensional assessment of symptoms and psychosocial distress in cancer patients from the time of incurability

Objective

Previous symptom prevalence studies show a diverse spectrum of symptoms and a large diversity in symptom intensities in patients being just diagnosed as having incurable cancer. It is unclear, how physical symptoms and psychosocial burden should be recorded in order to determine the variable need for palliative care and further support. Therefore, we compared two different strategies for detecting physical symptoms and psychosocial burden of patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancer and their effects on the further course of the disease.

Methods

SCREBEL is a controlled, randomized, non-blinded, longitudinal study of the research network of the Palliative Medicine Working Group (APM) of the German Cancer Society (DKG). We compared: a less complex repeated brief screening for symptoms and burden in patients using the NCCN Distress Thermometer and IPOS questionnaire versus a multidimensional comprehensive assessment using the FACT-G and their entity-specific questionnaires, the PHQ4 scales, SCNS-34-SF, IPOS and NCCN Distress Thermometer. The primary study endpoint was quality of life (QoL), measured using FACT-G, after six months. Secondary study endpoints were QoL by using evaluation of secondary scores (NCCN DT, IPOS, PHQ4, SCNS-SF-34G) at time 6 months, the number of hospital days, the utilization of palliative care, emergency services, and psychosocial care structures. To assess effects and differences, multiple linear regression models were fitted and survival analyses were conducted.

Results

504 patients were included in the study. 262 patients were lost to follow-up, including 155 fatalities. There were no significant differences between the low-threshold screening approach and a comprehensive assessment with respect to symptoms and other aspects of QoL. Using the IPOS, we were able to measure an improvement in the quality of life in the low-threshold screening arm by a decrease of 0.67 points (95%-CI: 0.34 to 0.99) every 30 days. (p<0.001). Data on the involvement of emergency facilities and on supportive services were insufficient for analysis.

Conclusion

A comprehensive, multidimensional assessment did not significantly differ from brief screening in preserving several dimensions of quality of life. These findings may positively influence the implementation of structured low-threshold screening programs for supportive and palliative needs in DKG certified cancer centers.DRKS -No. DRKS00017774 https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00017774.

Screening versus multidimensional assessment of symptoms and psychosocial distress in cancer patients from the time of incurability

OBJECTIVE

Previous symptom prevalence studies show a diverse spectrum of symptoms and a large diversity in symptom intensities in patients being just diagnosed as having incurable cancer. It is unclear, how physical symptoms and psychosocial burden should be recorded in order to determine the variable need for palliative care and further support. Therefore, we compared two different strategies for detecting physical symptoms and psychosocial burden of patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancer and their effects on the further course of the disease.

METHODS

SCREBEL is a controlled, randomized, non-blinded, longitudinal study of the research network of the Palliative Medicine Working Group (APM) of the German Cancer Society (DKG). We compared: a less complex repeated brief screening for symptoms and burden in patients using the NCCN Distress Thermometer and IPOS questionnaire versus a multidimensional comprehensive assessment using the FACT-G and their entity-specific questionnaires, the PHQ4 scales, SCNS-34-SF, IPOS and NCCN Distress Thermometer. The primary study endpoint was quality of life (QoL), measured using FACT-G, after six months. Secondary study endpoints were QoL by using evaluation of secondary scores (NCCN DT, IPOS, PHQ4, SCNS-SF-34G) at time 6 months, the number of hospital days, the utilization of palliative care, emergency services, and psychosocial care structures. To assess effects and differences, multiple linear regression models were fitted and survival analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

504 patients were included in the study. 262 patients were lost to follow-up, including 155 fatalities. There were no significant differences between the low-threshold screening approach and a comprehensive assessment with respect to symptoms and other aspects of QoL. Using the IPOS, we were able to measure an improvement in the quality of life in the low-threshold screening arm by a decrease of 0.67 points (95%-CI: 0.34 to 0.99) every 30 days. (p<0.001). Data on the involvement of emergency facilities and on supportive services were insufficient for analysis.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive, multidimensional assessment did not significantly differ from brief screening in preserving several dimensions of quality of life. These findings may positively influence the implementation of structured low-threshold screening programs for supportive and palliative needs in DKG certified cancer centers.DRKS -No. DRKS00017774 https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00017774.

Development of the palliative care referral system: proposal of a tool for the referral of cancer patients to specialized palliative care

BACKGROUND

Early palliative care (PC) has shown beneficial effects for advanced cancer patients. However, it is still debated what criteria to use to identify patients for PC referral.

AIM

To document the initial steps of the development of the Palliative Care Referral System (PCRS), a tool to be used by oncologists in clinical practice.

METHODS

A multiprofessional working group developed the PCRS based on the results of a scoping literature review on PC referral criteria. PCRS criteria were evaluated by experts via a nominal group technique (NGT). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize expert scores on relevance, appropriateness and perceived feasibility of the criteria proposed. Quotations of participants during the discussion were also reported.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies, including PC referral criteria/tools, emerged from the scoping review. Severe symptoms, poor performance status, comorbidities and prognosis were the most commonly used criteria. The PCRS included nine major criteria and nine assessment methods; a scoring procedure was also proposed. Answers to the questionnaire during the NGT showed that five criteria reached full agreement on all items, while four did not, and were then discussed within the group. Participants agreed on the relevance of all criteria and on the appropriateness of methods proposed to assess most of them, while issues were raised about potential feasibility of the overall assessment of the PCRS in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

The PCRS has been developed as an help for oncologists to timely identify patients for specialized PC referral. Since feasibility emerged as the main concern, implementation strategies have to be tested in subsequent studies.

Symptom Control and Survival for People Severely ill With COVID: A Multicentre Cohort Study (CovPall-Symptom)

CONTEXT

Evidence of symptom control outcomes in severe COVID is scant.

OBJECTIVES

To determine changes in symptoms among people severely ill or dying with COVID supported by palliative care, and associations with treatments and survival.

METHODS

Multicentre cohort study of people with COVID across England and Wales supported by palliative care services, during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. We analysed clinical, demographic and survival data, symptom severity at baseline (referral to palliative care, first COVID assessment) and at three follow-up assessments using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - COVID version.

RESULTS

We included 572 patients from 25 services, mostly hospital support teams; 496 (87%) were newly referred to palliative care with COVID, 75 (13%) were already supported by palliative care when they contracted COVID. At baseline, patients had a mean of 2.4 co-morbidities, mean age 77 years, a mean of five symptoms, and were often bedfast or semiconscious. The most prevalent symptoms were: breathlessness, weakness/lack of energy, drowsiness, anxiety, agitation, confusion/delirium, and pain. Median time in palliative care was 46 hours; 77% of patients died. During palliative care, breathlessness, agitation, anxiety, delirium, cough, fever, pain, sore/dry mouth and nausea improved; drowsiness became worse. Common treatments were low dose morphine and midazolam. Having moderate to severe breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity were associated with shorter survival.

CONCLUSION

Symptoms of COVID quickly improved during palliative care. Breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity could be used as triggers for timelier referral, and symptom guidance for wider specialities should build on treatments identified in this study.

Comprehensive symptom assessment using Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale in hospitalized heart failure patients

Aims

Patients with heart failure (HF) may have variable unrecognized symptom burdens. We sought to investigate the details, determinants, and prognostic significance of symptom burden in hospitalized patients with HF.

Methods and results

We prospectively evaluated consecutive hospitalized patients with HF as primary diagnosis at our institution using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) both on admission and at discharge. The IPOS, which is a well‐validated multi‐dimensional symptom assessment scale among advanced illness, consists of 17 questions for enquiring about physical symptoms (10 items), emotional symptoms (4 items) and communication and practical issues (3 items) using a 5‐point Likert scale (0 [best]–4 [worst] points). Clinically relevant symptoms were defined as ≥2 points for each IPOS item. Worsening symptom burden was defined as the total IPOS score at discharge being poorer than that on admission. Of 294 patients (mean age: 77.5 ± 12.0 years, male: 168 patients, New York Heart Association class IV: 96 patients, mean left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]: 44%, and median N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide [NT‐proBNP] level: 4418 ng/L), the median (IQR) total IPOS score on admission was 19 (12, 27) and they were widely distributed (minimum: 0 – maximum: 52). The total IPOS score on admission was not correlated with the HF severity, including LVEF (Spearman's ρ = −0.05, P = 0.43), NT‐proBNP levels (Spearman's ρ = 0.08, P = 0.20) or in‐hospital mortality prediction model (GWTG‐HF risk score) (Spearman's ρ = 0.01, P = 0.90). Total IPOS scores significantly decreased during hospitalization as a whole (median [IQR]: 13 [6, 21] at discharge; P < 0.001 vs. those on admission). All of the four emotional symptoms (patient anxiety, depression, family anxiety and feeling at peace) remained in the top 5 of clinically relevant symptoms at discharge, whereas none of 10 physical symptoms were nominated. Worsening symptom burden was noted in 28% of the patients during hospitalization, and was independently associated with higher all‐cause mortality after discharge (hazard ratio: 2.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.02–5.09; P = 0.044) even after adjustment by age and HF mortality prediction model (MAGGIC risk score).

Conclusions

We revealed that hospitalized patients with HF had multi‐dimensional symptom burdens which varied among individuals and were not correlated with the disease severity. Emotional symptoms, such as anxiety and depression, were the main clinically relevant symptoms at discharge. A worsening IPOS score was noted in a quarter of patients with HF and was associated with a poor prognosis, suggesting the importance of holistic symptom assessment during the course of hospitalization for HF.

Association between prognostic awareness and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer

PURPOSE

Despite the current guidelines supporting open communication about serious news, the evidence about the impact of prognostic awareness on the quality of life in cancer patients is not clear. The aim of this study was to assess the association between quality of life and prognostic awareness in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study which involved patients (n = 129) with incurable advanced cancer (estimated by oncologist using 12-month surprise question). Data were collected at oncology departments at 3 hospitals using structured interview in which patients were asked about their quality of life (using Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale-IPOS and a single-item global measure), prognostic awareness, information needs and demographics.

RESULTS

Only 16% of the sample was completely aware of prognosis and 57% was partially aware. Accurate prognostic awareness was significantly associated (p = 0.02) with lower level of quality of life between (when measured by both the IPOS and the single-item scale) patients with accurate prognostic awareness (M = 37.1; 10.4) and partially aware (M = 31.9; 9.1) and unaware patients (M = 30; 7.4). Detailed analysis showed that significant difference between groups was found only for physical symptoms subscales (p = 0.002), not for emotional and communication subscales.

CONCLUSION

Prognostic awareness was found to be negatively associated with physical domain of quality of life, but not with emotional and communication domains. More research is needed on personality factors that might influence the development of prognostic awareness and quality of life.

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

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.

Psychometric validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale in Polish (IPOS-Pol)

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the IPOS-Pol for patient self-reporting.

METHOD

Patients (>18 years of age) with advanced cancer admitted to three palliative care centers (inpatient units and home-based) were recruited to a multicenter, cross-sectional, observational, prospective study. Participants provided responses to the IPOS-Pol Patient version and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 15 - Palliative Care (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL) Polish version at baseline (T1) and four to seven days later (T2). We assessed test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the tool.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty patients were included. Test-retest reliability demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the average outcomes of the IPOS-Pol between T1 and T2 (27.2 ± 9.2 vs. 26.5 ± 8.7; p > 0.05). The intra-class correlation coefficient between T1 and T2 was r = 0.83 (p < 0.0001), the intra-class correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability of the IPOS-Pol items ranged from 0.63 to 0.84 (p < 0.0001), and the Cronbach's α coefficient for internal consistency was 0.773. The correlation coefficient between the IPOS-Pol and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL total score was 0.79 (p < 0.001).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The patient version of the Polish adaptation of IPOS is a valid and reliable outcome measure for assessing symptoms and concerns of individuals receiving palliative care, as well as the quality of care provided.

Validity and reliability of the English and translated Chinese versions of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) in Singapore

CONTEXT

Measurement of patient-centred outcomes enables clinicians to focus on patient and family priorities and enables quality of palliative care to be assessed.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the English and translated Chinese versions of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) among advanced cancer patients in Singapore.

METHODS

IPOS was forward and backward translated from English into Chinese. Structural validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis; known-group validity by comparing inpatients and community patients; construct validity by correlating IPOS with Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESAS-r) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G); internal consistency by Cronbach's alpha; inter-rater reliability between patient and staff responses; test-retest reliability of patient responses between two timepoints.

RESULTS

One hundred eleven English-responding and 109 Chinese-responding patients participated. The three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication and Practical Issues) was confirmed with Comparative Fit Index and Tucker-Lewis-Index > 0.9 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation < 0.08. Inpatients scored higher than outpatients as hypothesised. Construct validity (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r ≥ |0.608|) was shown between the related subscales of IPOS and FACT-G and ESAS-r. Internal consistency was confirmed for total and subscale scores (Cronbach's alpha≥0.84), except for the Communication and Practical Issues subscale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.29-0.65). Inter-rater reliability (Intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC] ≤ 0.43) between patient and staff responses was insufficient. Test-retest reliability was confirmed with Intra-class correlation coefficient ICC = 0.80 (English) and 0.88 (Chinese) for IPOS Total.

CONCLUSION

IPOS in English and Chinese showed good validity, good internal consistency, and good test-retest reliability, except for the Communication and Practical Issues subscale. There was poor inter-rater reliability between patients and staff.

Translation and cultural adaptation of IPOS (integrated palliative care outcome scale) in Estonia

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that could be used in palliative care (PC) to evaluate patient well-being and monitor their care. PROMs enable a focus on what is important to patients by putting the patient at the center of care. Adapting an existing PROM requires considering cultural differences, general usability and understandability of translated terms.

AIM

To translate and culturally adapt both the patient and staff three and seven day versions of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) into Estonian. The IPOS consist of 10 questions (staff versions 9 questions) and 17 close ended items. The sub aim is to describe the differences and discrepancies found during the adaptation process and compare the results with previous research.

METHODS

The translation and adaptation process of IPOS was conducted using recommended guidelines consisting of six phases and included cognitive interviews with patients (n = 11) and palliative care multidisciplinary team members (n = 8). The study was conducted in two major Estonian hospitals.

RESULTS

The Estonian IPOS demonstrated face and content validity, acceptance by patients and staff. As a result of expert group review and cognitive interviews with patients and staff, 9 semantic changes were implemented.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and staff versions of the IPOS with a recall of 3 or 7 days were translated and culturally adapted for Estonia. The Estonian IPOS four versions are ready for use in Estonia.

Psychometric properties of the Czech Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale: reliability and content validity analysis

Background

Outcome measurement is an essential part of the evaluation of palliative care and the measurements need to be reliable, valid and adapted to the culture in which they are used. The Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) is a widely used tool for assessing personal-level outcomes in palliative care. The aim of this study was to provide Czech version of IPOS and assess its psychometric properties.

Methods

Patients receiving palliative care in hospice or hospitals completed the IPOS. The reliability of Czech IPOS was tested with Cronbach alpha (for internal consistency), the intraclass correlation coefficient for total IPOS score and weighted Kappa (for test-retest reliability of individual items). Factor analysis was used for elucidating the construct (Exploratory Factor Analysis). Convergent validity was tested with correlation analysis (Spearman correlation) in a part of the sample, who completed also the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS).

Results

The sample consisted of 140 patients (mean age 72; 90 women; 81% oncological disease). The Cronbach alpha was 0.789; intraclass correlation was 0.88. The correlations of IPOS with ESAS was R = 0.4 and PPS R = − 0.2. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 2-factor solution on our data. The first factor covers emotional and information needs and the second factor covers physical symptoms.

Conclusion

Czech IPOS has very good reliability regarding both internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Together with an item analysis results, we can conclude that the Czech adaptation of the tool was successful. The convergent validity needs to be assessed on the larger sample and the proposed 2-factor internal structure of the questionnaire has to be confirmed by using CFA.