Achieving consensus on priority items for paediatric palliative care outcome measurement: Results from a modified Delphi survey, engagement with a children's research involvement group and expert item generation

Development of a child and family centred outcome measure for children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions: progress to date on the Children's Palliative Care Outcome Scale (C-POS:UK)

Background

Development of a paediatric palliative care child and family centred outcome measure is a priority for health care professionals, researchers and advocates. It is methodologically challenging to develop a measure relevant for such a heterogenous population with complex needs. Involving children in measuring development is vital.

Objective

To develop C-POS:UK (Children's Palliative Care Outcome Scale, UK), a person-centred outcome measure (PCOM) for children with life-limiting conditions and their families, and to test its psychometric properties.

Design

Sequential mixed-methods approach to PCOM development, guided by Rothrock's measure development process and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology.

Methods

(i) Qualitative interviews about priority symptoms and concerns, with embedded exploration of measure design for children with life-limiting conditions; (ii) systematic review of measure design for children; (iii) modified Delphi survey, and consultation with children, on priority items for new measure; (iv) expert item generation meeting to develop C-POS:UK; (v) cognitive testing to refine C-POS:UK; (vi) psychometric validation.

Results

(i) 106 participants described physical, emotional/psychological, spiritual/existential, social and practical concerns. Measure design was discussed by 79 participants comprising preferred response format, recall period and measure administration for children with life-limiting conditions; (ii) systematic review highlighted need for: different versions of measure accounting for child's developmental stage and cognitive ability; parent/carer involvement as proxies for very young children; and testing to clarify recall periods and response formats at different developmental stages; (iii) Delphi survey: 82 participants (in the first round), with a move towards consensus, but with some differing priorities in stakeholder groups: professionals prioritised physical symptoms, parents prioritised psychosocial and practical matters, while consulted children prioritised normality; (iv) 22 experts contributed to item generation meeting, resulting in five versions of C-POS:UK accounting for child's developmental stage and cognitive ability, and proxy involvement; (v) 48 participants cognitively tested initial C-POS:UK, informing comprehension, comprehensiveness and acceptability; (vi) psychometric validation is ongoing.

Conclusion

A sequential approach informed by Rothrock and COSMIN has supported development of the first version of C-POS:UK. Psychometric validation is underway and will be followed by implementation planning.

Cognitive testing of the Children's Palliative Outcome Scale (C-POS) with children, young people and their parents/carers

BACKGROUND

The Children's Palliative Outcome Scale (C-POS) is being developed using best methodological guidance on outcome measure development, This recommends cognitive testing, an established method of item improvement, prior to psychometric testing.

AIM

To cognitively test C-POS within the target population to establish comprehensibility, comprehensiveness, relevance and acceptability.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional cognitive interview study following COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology and Rothrock guidance on outcome measure development. Cognitive interviews were conducted using 'think aloud' and verbal probing techniques.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Children 5-⩽17 years old with life-limiting conditions and parents/carers of children with life-limiting conditions were recruited from 14 UK sites.

RESULTS

Forty-eight individuals participated (36 parents; 12 children) in cognitively testing the five versions of C-POS over two to seven rounds. Content and length were acceptable, and all questions were considered important. Refinements were made to parent/carer versions to be inclusive of non-verbal children such as changing 'share' to 'express' feelings; and 'being able to ask questions' to 'having the appropriate information'. Changes to improve comprehensibility of items such as 'living life to the fullest' were also made. Parents reported that completing an outcome measure can be distressing but this is anticipated and that being asked is important.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive interviewing has facilitated refinement of the C-POS, especially for non-verbal children who represent a large proportion of those with a life-limiting condition. This study has enhanced the face and content validity of the measure and provided preliminary evidence for acceptability for use in routine practice.

What are the anticipated benefits, risks, barriers and facilitators to implementing person-centred outcome measures into routine care for children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions? A qualitative interview study with key stakeholders

BACKGROUND

There is a growing evidence-base underpinning implementation of person-centred outcome measures into adult palliative care. However evidence on how best to achieve this with children facing life-threatening and life-limiting conditions is limited.

AIM

To identify the anticipated benefits, risks, barriers and facilitators to implementing person-centred outcome measures for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional qualitative semi-structured interview study with key stakeholders analysed using Framework analysis informed by the adapted-Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A total of n = 26 children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions, n = 40 parents/carers, n = 13 siblings and n = 15 health and social care professionals recruited from six hospitals and three children's hospices and n = 12 Commissioners of health services.

RESULTS

All participants were supportive of future implementation of person-centred outcome measures into care. Anticipated benefits included: better understanding of patient and family priorities, improved communication and collaborative working between professionals and families and standardisation in data collection and reporting. Anticipated risks included increased workload for staff and measures not being used as intended. Implementation barriers included: acceptability and usability of outcome measures by children; burden and capacity of parents/carers regarding completion; privacy concerns; and language barriers. Implementation facilitators included designing measures using language that is meaningful to children and families, ensuring potential benefits of person-centred outcome measures are communicated to encourage 'buy-in' and administering measures with known and trusted professional.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of person-centred outcome measures offer potential benefits for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. Eight recommendations are made to maximise benefits and minimise risks in implementation.