Nekolaichuk Cheryl, Watanabe Sharon, Beaumont Crystal
Division of Palliative Care Medicine, Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Palliat Med. 2008 Mar;22(2):111-22. doi: 10.1177/0269216307087659.
The purpose of this review was to identify and critique validation studies focusing on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a commonly used symptom assessment tool for advanced cancer and palliative patients.
Using a comprehensive literature search, the authors identified and screened 87 publications. Thirteen articles were selected for in-depth review, based on the following inclusion criteria: psychometric studies with a primary focus on the ESAS, 1991--2006 publication dates and peer-reviewed English language publications.
Most studies involved cancer patients (n = 11). The ESAS format varied across studies, in terms of scale format, item number, item selection and language. Studies focused on gathering reliability estimates (n = 8), content validity evidence (n = 1), concurrent validity evidence (n = 5), predictive validity evidence (n = 1), and sensitivity and/or specificity (n = 3). None of these studies involved patients' perspectives as a source of validity evidence.
The use of varying instrument formats and limited psychometric evidence support the need for further ESAS validation studies, including the involvement of patients.
本综述的目的是识别和评判聚焦于埃德蒙顿症状评估系统(ESAS)的验证研究,该系统是晚期癌症患者和姑息治疗患者常用的症状评估工具。
通过全面的文献检索,作者识别并筛选了87篇出版物。基于以下纳入标准,选择了13篇文章进行深入综述:主要聚焦于ESAS的心理测量学研究、1991年至2006年的出版日期以及经同行评审的英文出版物。
大多数研究涉及癌症患者(n = 11)。ESAS的形式在不同研究中有所不同,包括量表形式、项目数量、项目选择和语言。研究重点在于收集信度估计值(n = 8)、内容效度证据(n = 1)、同时效度证据(n = 5)、预测效度证据(n = 1)以及敏感度和/或特异度(n = 3)。这些研究均未将患者的观点作为效度证据的来源。
不同的工具形式以及有限的心理测量学证据表明,需要进一步开展ESAS验证研究,包括纳入患者参与。