Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023 Mar 24;21(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02102-4.
Patient-centred measures to capture symptoms and concerns have rarely been reported in severe COVID. We adapted and tested the measurement properties of the proxy version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-IPOS-COV for severe COVID using psychometric approach.
We consulted experts and followed consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments and United States Food and Drug Administration guidance for adaptation and analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis and clinical perspective informed subscales. We tested the internal consistency reliability, calculated item total correlations, examined re-test reliability in stable patients, and also evaluated inter-rater reproducibility. We examined convergent and divergent validity of IPOS-COV with the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and evaluated known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was examined.
In the adaptation phase, 6 new items were added, 7 items were removed from the original measure. The recall period was revised to be the last 12-24 h to capture fast deterioration in COVID. General format and response options of the original Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were preserved. Data from 572 patients with COVID from across England and Wales seen by palliative care services were included. Four subscales were supported by the 4-factor solution explaining 53.5% of total variance. Breathlessness-Agitation and Gastro-intestinal subscales demonstrated good reliability with high to moderate (a = 0.70 and a = 0.67) internal consistency, and item-total correlations (0.62-0.21). All except the Flu subscale discriminated well between patients with differing disease severity. Inter-rater reliability was fair with ICC of 0.40 (0.3-0.5, 95% CI, n = 324). Correlations between the subscales and AKPS as predicted were weak (r = 0.13-0.26) but significant (p < 0.01). Breathlessness-Agitation and Drowsiness-Delirium subscales demonstrated good divergent validity. Patients with low oxygen saturation had higher mean Breathlessness-Agitation scores (M = 5.3) than those with normal levels (M = 3.4), t = 6.4 (186), p < 0.001. Change in Drowsiness-Delirium subscale correctly classified patients who died.
IPOS-COV is the first patient-centred measure adapted for severe COVID to support timely management. Future studies could further evaluate its responsiveness and clinical utility with clinimetric approaches.
以患者为中心的症状和关注点评估工具在严重 COVID 中很少被报道。我们采用心理计量学方法,对严重 COVID 患者使用的代理版综合姑息治疗结局量表(IPOS-COV)进行了测量特性的改编和测试。
我们咨询了专家,并遵循选择健康状况测量工具的共识标准以及美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)的改编和分析指南。探索性因素分析和临床观点为子量表提供了信息。我们测试了内部一致性信度,计算了项目总分相关性,检查了稳定患者的重测信度,还评估了评分者间的可重复性。我们用澳大利亚改良卡诺夫斯基表现量表(AKPS)评估了 IPOS-COV 的聚合和区别效度,并评估了已知组别的效度。还评估了检测变化的能力。
在改编阶段,增加了 6 个新项目,从原始量表中删除了 7 个项目。修改了回忆期,以便在 COVID 快速恶化时能够在过去 12-24 小时内捕获症状。保留了原始综合姑息治疗结局量表的一般格式和回答选项。共纳入英格兰和威尔士 572 名接受姑息治疗服务的 COVID 患者的数据。4 个因子解支持 4 个子量表,解释了总方差的 53.5%。呼吸困难-激越和胃肠子量表具有良好的可靠性,内部一致性高到中度(a=0.70 和 a=0.67),项目总分相关性(0.62-0.21)。除了流感子量表外,所有子量表都能很好地区分不同疾病严重程度的患者。评分者间的可重复性一般,ICC 为 0.40(0.3-0.5,95%CI,n=324)。子量表与 AKPS 的预测相关性较弱(r=0.13-0.26),但有统计学意义(p<0.01)。呼吸困难-激越和嗜睡-意识混乱子量表表现出良好的区别效度。低氧饱和度患者的呼吸困难-激越评分均值(M=5.3)高于正常水平患者(M=3.4),t 值为 6.4(186),p<0.001。嗜睡-意识混乱子量表的变化可以正确分类死亡患者。
IPOS-COV 是第一个针对严重 COVID 的以患者为中心的改编措施,支持及时管理。未来的研究可以通过临床计量学方法进一步评估其反应性和临床实用性。