ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) is a reliable tool to assess performance status in cancer patients receiving palliative care (PC). Spanish validated and culturally adapted tools are needed. OBJECTIVES: The objectives are to develop PPS translation and cross-cultural adaptation into Spanish and to assess its psychometric properties. DESIGN: Translation process with cross-cultural adaptation to produce Spanish Palliative Performance Scale (PPS-SPANISH). SETTINGS: PC Team at one University hospital in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen advanced cancer patients (60 assessments) were included for PPS translation and validation and 250 patients for cross-sectional analysis. All participants were recruited at oncology ward, emergency area, and outpatient clinic by PC team professionals. Informed consent was given. Average age was 66.4 ± 13 years (60% men). METHODS: The process is designed in three steps. In Step 1, PPS translation and reverse translation into Spanish (three bilingual speakers) and linguistic complexity measurement were performed. In Step 2, readability and intelligibility assessment was carried out. In Step 3, a pilot study was conducted to assess test-retest reliability followed by a cross-sectional study to measure internal consistency. Inclusion criteria were the same for two samples. Demographic data were also analyzed by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Following cultural, linguistic, and grammatical adaptation, PPS-SPANISH was readable and reliable. The analysis of the test-retest reliability after 48 hours showed intraclass correlations >0.60. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.99 (0.988-0.992). There was high agreement with other functional assessment tools (Barthel Index and Karnofsky Performance Status Index). CONCLUSIONS: PPS-SPANISH showed reliability and validity, and it is suitable to assess performance status in cancer patients receiving PC.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/therapy , Palliative Care/methods , Terminal Care/methods , Aged , Cross-Cultural Comparison , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Karnofsky Performance Status , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/physiopathology , Pilot Projects , Psychometrics , Reproducibility of Results , TranslatingABSTRACT
Multi-state models are useful for modelling disease progression where the state space of the process is used to represent the discrete disease status of subjects. Often, the disease process is only observed at clinical visits, and the schedule of these visits can depend on the disease status of patients. In such situations, the frequency and timing of observations may depend on transition times that are themselves unobserved in an interval-censored setting. There is a potential for bias if we model a disease process with informative observation times as a non-informative observation scheme with pre-specified examination times. In this paper, we develop a joint model for the disease and observation processes to ensure valid inference because the follow-up process may itself contain information about the disease process. The transitions for each subject are modelled using a Markov process, where bivariate subject-specific random effects are used to link the disease and observation models. Inference is based on a Bayesian framework, and we apply our joint model to the analysis of a large study examining functional decline trajectories of palliative care patients.
Subject(s)
Disease Progression , Hospice Care/statistics & numerical data , Palliative Care/statistics & numerical data , Proportional Hazards Models , Severity of Illness Index , Bayes Theorem , Breast Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Likelihood Functions , Linear Models , Lung Neoplasms , Male , Markov Chains , Stochastic Processes , Time Factors , VictoriaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) was first introduced in1996 as a new tool for measurement of performance status in palliative care. PPS has been used in many countries and has been translated into other languages. METHODS: This study evaluated the reliability and validity of PPS. A web-based, case scenarios study with a test-retest format was used to determine reliability. Fifty-three participants were recruited and randomly divided into two groups, each evaluating 11 cases at two time points. The validity study was based on the content validation of 15 palliative care experts conducted over telephone interviews, with discussion on five themes: PPS as clinical assessment tool, the usefulness of PPS, PPS scores affecting decision making, the problems in using PPS, and the adequacy of PPS instruction. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement were 0.959 and 0.964 for Group 1, at Time-1 and Time-2; 0.951 and 0.931 for Group 2, at Time-1 and Time-2 respectively. Results showed that the participants were consistent in their scoring over the two times, with a mean Cohen's kappa of 0.67 for Group 1 and 0.71 for Group 2. In the validity study, all experts agreed that PPS is a valuable clinical assessment tool in palliative care. Many of them have already incorporated PPS as part of their practice standard. CONCLUSION: The results of the reliability study demonstrated that PPS is a reliable tool. The validity study found that most experts did not feel a need to further modify PPS and, only two experts requested that some performance status measures be defined more clearly. Areas of PPS use include prognostication, disease monitoring, care planning, hospital resource allocation, clinical teaching and research. PPS is also a good communication tool between palliative care workers.
