Psychometric properties of the suffering assessment questionnaire in adults with chronic diseases or life-threatening illness

Patient-Reported Burden of Indolent Systemic Mastocytosis in a Managed Care Organization

BACKGROUND

Indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM), the most frequent subtype of systemic mastocytosis, requires better understanding.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the diagnostic journey, symptom severity, impact on quality of life and work/activities, and health care utilization of ISM.

METHODS

Survey data were collected from 40 adults with documented ISM meeting World Health Organization 2016 criteria, including validated questionnaires (ISM Symptom Assessment Form [ISM-SAF] and Short Form Quality of Life Survey [SF-12v1]). Spearman correlation coefficients determined the associations between the ISM-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS) and SF-12v1 scores. ISM burden was compared based on moderate/severe compared with mild TSS scores using Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

Patients were aged 56.0 ± 13.0 years, 65.0% female, 62.5% White, and 22.5% Hispanic patients. ISM diagnosis took >2 years in 40%, required ≥6 visits in 47.5%, and was considered moderately/extremely difficult in 50% of patients. Nearly half experienced symptoms daily and rated severity somewhat/significantly worsened since diagnosis. The overall TSS was 27.4 ± 16.2 (mean ± standard deviation). SF-12 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (46.7 ± 11.4) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) (47.6 ± 10.2) scores were lower than the general population score of 50. Moderate correlations (P < .001) were found between TSS and the PCS (ρ = -0.6406; P < .001) and MCS (ρ = -0.5104; P < .001). Compared with patients with mild severity (TSS < 28; n = 21), patients with moderate/severe severity (TSS ≥ 28; n = 19) evidenced significantly higher skin and gastrointestinal symptom scores (both, P ≤ .001). ISM's impact on ability to work for pay was associated with TSS (P = .004). Symptom-directed treatment had limited effect.

CONCLUSION

ISM was self-reported as a burdensome condition in half the patients that markedly affected daily living.

A Multicentric Field Test to Study the Validity and Feasibility of the SHS-tool to Screen for Serious Health-related Suffering in Adult Patients with Cancer

Objectives

The 2017 Lancet Commission reports 'Serious Health-related Suffering' (SHS) as an abyss in healthcare services. It lists 20 common health conditions and 15 symptoms as commonly associated with SHS. In 2015, 80% of SHS prevalence, an estimated 61 million, was noted as from low-middle-income countries. Acknowledging the high prevalence of SHS in cancer patients and aligning with global efforts to address and alleviate the suffering, the National Cancer Grid of India developed and evaluated the SHS screening tool (SHS-tool). The SHS tool was developed during phase 1 of the study through a systematic consensus-building methodology. During phase 2, the validity and feasibility study of the SHS tool was completed through a multicentric field test, which is described here.

Materials and Methods

The SHS tool developed during phase 1 was field-tested across nine tertiary cancer care centres (TCC sites) selected from different healthcare sectors and regions of India. The study utilised a purposive sample of 254 cancer patients to evaluate the validity of the SHS screening tool at selected sites and additionally recorded the feasibility, relevance, acceptability and feedback comments from patients (n = 121), research associates (n = 11) and principal investigators (PIs) (n = 9). A documented interview of the patient within the same timeframe by experienced personnel selected by the PI served as the standard.

Results

The field-test TCC-sites represented government academic institutions, non-government and private sectors. The sites used patient waiting areas and inpatient/daycare wards for conducting field tests. The Cronbach's alpha of the SHS-tool questionnaire showed an internal consistency of 0.728. The tool detected SHS in 137/254 patients, compared to 116/254 through the interview method. The outcomes concurred with that of the interview in 64.17% of instances. The tool exhibited a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 59%. 66.67% of patients might not have reached the interviewers if not for the field test processes. The feasibility questionnaire responses from patients (n = 121) indicated ease of understanding (91.74%), ease of use (92.56%) and relevance (89.26%). The selected settings were found suitable by 96.69%. Feedback responses from research associates indicated ease of administration (10/11) and relevance (8/11) and found no reasons preventing its use (8/11). The feedback comments from the stakeholders were thematically grouped for insights.

Conclusion

The SHS tool is validated for screening SHS where none exists. It has been found to be a feasible, relevant and acceptable tool for use in adult cancer patients attending TCCs across India. Insights from analysing the feedback comments from the stakeholders have been integrated as 'instruction for use' for refined implementation of the SHS tool. The SHS tool may be utilised to recognise and trigger an in-depth evaluation and expedited access to essential palliative care packages towards alleviating it, as recommended by the Lancet Commission. Future studies using the SHS tool in other disease conditions with a high burden of SHS can assess its wider applicability.

Sense of coherence and religion/spirituality: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on a methodical classification of instruments measuring religion/spirituality

The coherence hypothesis assumes that sense of coherence (SOC) explains the positive link between religion/spirituality (R/S) and mental health. The aim of our meta-analysis is to evaluate the evidence for the association between SOC (sensu Antonovsky) and different aspects of R/S and thus to contribute to the verification of the coherence hypothesis. Eighty-nine English- and German-language primarily cross-sectional studies with 67,913 participants met the inclusion criteria. The R/S scales of all included studies were subjected to item-by-item qualitative content analysis in order to determine whether scales do actually measure religion or spirituality and which R/S aspects dominated the instrument. Based on this classification, overall and subgroup meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model. The adjusted effect size between SOC and all positive R/S measures was r+ = .120, 95% CI [.092, .149]. Particularly significant (r+ < -.180 or > .180) were correlations with negative R/S scales (r+ = -.405, 95% CI [-.476, -.333]), R/S instruments measuring primarily positive emotions (r+ = .212, 95% CI [.170, .253]) or meaning-making (r+ = .196, 95% CI [.126, .265]). Both sample characteristics (age, culture, gender, health status, religious affiliation) and study characteristics (e.g., publication year) had a moderating effect on the R/S-SOC connection. The correlation was particularly high in studies from Southern Asia (r+ = .226, 95% CI [.156, .297]), the African Islamic cultural value zone (r+ = .196, 95% CI [.106, .285]), and in a small subgroup of Iranian studies (r+ = .194, 95% CI [.117, .271]). The results confirm that R/S and SOC are clearly associated and suggest that there are different religious/spiritual pathways to a strong SOC. The strength of the associations presumably depends not only on individual differences, but also on cultural embeddedness and social plausibility of R/S. Trial registration. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021240380. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID = CRD42021240380.

Addressing Suffering in Patients With Psychiatric Disorders

BACKGROUND

Patients with psychiatric disorders (as well as general medical conditions) often describe their lives in terms of suffering. Although suffering is honored as a central focus of physicians' concerns, it is not even indexed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. Generally connoting severe, prolonged distress, suffering can be distinguished from pain, depression, and anxiety. The aims of this article are to consider whether attending to suffering per se in psychiatric patients merits attention independent of other commonly assessed psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and conventional distress, and how targeting suffering per se might add value to psychiatric patient care.

METHODS

Sources for this article were obtained via a selective literature search in PubMed using the terms "suffering" in the title and the terms "psychiatric disorder," "mental illness," "assessment," "measurement," "scale," "existential suffering," and "unbearable suffering." Articles of interest were followed up using a snowball technique to examine "similar articles" and "cited by" titles to find additional pertinent articles.

RESULTS

Definitions of suffering in the medical literature stress its subjectivity, particularity, complexity, and connection to a wide variety of noxious sensations, as well as real and anticipated deficits, losses, and thwarted motivations. These can affect the entire spectrum of universal human needs, from basic biological issues through intrapsychic, interpersonal, and social issues, encompassing existential concerns of meaning, purpose, and transcendence. Based on these factors, a definition of suffering in patients with psychiatric disorders is proposed. Although efforts to measure suffering have been limited and numerous gaps in the literature are evident, several scales may offer suitable bases for the study of suffering in patients with psychiatric disorders.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Ascertaining sources of suffering may require new types of inquiry and additional time. Well-described, evidence-informed strategies and time-honored psychotherapy techniques are available for addressing the numerous concerns that contribute to suffering. Patients with psychiatric disorders whose distinct, multidimensional sources of suffering are identified, acknowledged, and addressed may experience better treatment quality, greater treatment satisfaction, and possibly better outcomes than those whose clinicians' attention is limited to conventional psychiatric signs and symptoms.

The suffering measurement instruments in palliative care: A systematic review of psychometric properties

BACKGROUND

The relief of suffering is considered one of the main goals to reach at the end of life, and nurses play an essential role in the prevention and relief of suffering. Validated instruments for assessing suffering can be useful, and selection of the most appropriate measure is crucial. To date, no systematic review has been performed that contrasts the measurement properties of instruments assessing suffering in the palliative care population, according to the most up-to-date COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments methodology.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review is twofold: (1) identify the measures assessing suffering in the palliative care population, and (2) assess the measurement properties of these measures.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the measurement properties of instruments assessing suffering in palliative care was carried out.

DATA SOURCES

The search strategy was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, Cosmin database of systematic reviews and Open gray.

REVIEW METHODS

The following methodologies were applied: updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments, the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews tool. A protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42018106488). Eligible studies were those that satisfied the following criteria: a) validation studies of measures assessing suffering in the palliative care population, b) assessing at least one measurement property of a measure, c) published in English or Spanish and d) published between January 1980 and September 2019. The included studies were assessed for the methodological quality of the measurement properties and then compared in terms of both the measurement properties and the methodological quality of the processes used. The evidence for each measurement property was summarised and the quality of the evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded a total of nine studies and six instruments assessing suffering. The methodological quality of the studies was doubtful and the quality of the evidence was moderate for most of the measurement properties analysed. The Suffering Pictogram was the instrument with the best rating for methodological quality and quality of evidence, for most of the measurement properties evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Instruments assessing suffering in palliative care have been identified in this systematic review. The Suffering Pictogram seems to be the most useful instrument identified. Tweetable abstract: The relief of suffering is one of the main goals to reach at the end of life, and the selection of the most appropriate measure for assessing this construct is crucial.

Suffering measurement instruments in palliative care: protocol for a systematic psychometric review

INTRODUCTION

The prevention and relief of suffering are regarded as a goal at the end of life; therefore, suffering assessment at the end of life is essential. In this regard, we need instruments that allow us to evaluate this construct for gathering more evidence, as the assessment of suffering is increasingly used in research and the clinical setting. Many measures have been designed to assess this construct, and the selection of the most appropriate instrument is crucial. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) identify the measures assessing suffering in patients with advanced disease and their psychometric properties and (2) evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The protocol of this systematic review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols Guidelines. A systematic psychometric review of measures assessing suffering in patients with advanced disease and their psychometric properties will be carried out according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The search strategy will be performed following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. Searches will be conducted in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Open Grey, Scopus, Web of Science and COSMIN database of systematic reviews, and it will be limited by time (1980-2018) and language (only literature in English and Spanish). Literature will be evaluated by two independent reviewers according to the COSMIN checklist, and measurement properties data of each study that meet the inclusion criteria will be scored independently by two researchers according to COSMIN quality ratings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018106488.