International Observatory on End of Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
International Observatory on End of Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Aug;60(2):449-459.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.03.010. Epub 2020 Mar 20.
Supplementary support services in palliative care for older people are increasingly common, but with neither recommended tools to measure outcomes nor reviews synthesizing anticipated outcomes. Common clinically focused tools may be less appropriate.
To identify stakeholder perceptions of key outcomes from supplementary palliative care support services, then map these onto outcome measurement tools to assess relevance and item redundancy.
A scoping review using the design by Arksey and O'Malley. EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PSYCHinfo searched using terms relating to palliative care, qualitative research, and supplementary support interventions. Articles were imported into Endnote™, and Covidence™ was used by two reviewers to assess against inclusion criteria. Included articles were imported into NVivo™ and thematically coded to identify key concepts underpinning outcomes. Each item within contender outcome measurement tools was assessed against each concept.
Sixty included articles focused on advance care planning, guided conversations, and volunteer befriending services. Four concepts were identified: enriching relationships; greater autonomy and perceived control; knowing more; and improved mental health. Mapping concepts to contender tool items revealed issues of relevance and redundancy. Some tools had no redundant items but mapped only to two of four outcome themes; others mapped to all concepts, but with many redundant questions. Tools such as ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure and McGill Quality of Life had high relevance and low redundancy.
Pertinent outcome concepts for these services and population are not well represented in commonly used outcome measurement tools, and this may have implications in appropriately measuring outcomes. This review and mapping method may have utility in fields where selecting appropriate outcome tools can be challenging.
在老年人姑息治疗中,补充支持服务越来越普遍,但既没有推荐的工具来衡量结果,也没有综述预期结果的研究。常见的以临床为重点的工具可能不太合适。
确定补充姑息治疗支持服务的利益相关者对关键结果的看法,然后将这些看法映射到结果测量工具上,以评估相关性和项目冗余度。
使用 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的设计进行范围综述。使用与姑息治疗、定性研究和补充支持干预相关的术语,在 EMBASE、CINAHL、MEDLINE 和 PSYCHinfo 中进行搜索。将文章导入 Endnote™,并使用 Covidence™由两名审查员根据纳入标准进行评估。纳入的文章被导入 NVivo™,并进行主题编码以确定支撑结果的关键概念。竞争者结果测量工具中的每个项目都根据每个概念进行评估。
60 篇纳入的文章集中在预先护理计划、引导对话和志愿者交友服务上。确定了四个概念:丰富关系;更大的自主权和感知控制;更多的了解;以及改善心理健康。将概念映射到竞争者工具项目上,发现了相关性和冗余性问题。一些工具没有冗余项目,但仅映射到四个结果主题中的两个;其他工具映射到所有概念,但有许多冗余问题。ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure 和 McGill Quality of Life 等工具具有较高的相关性和较低的冗余性。
这些服务和人群的相关结果概念在常用的结果测量工具中没有得到很好的体现,这可能会对适当衡量结果产生影响。这种审查和映射方法在选择适当的结果工具具有挑战性的领域可能具有实用性。