RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Given the lack of valid and reliable instruments for evaluating the quality of communication between physicians and cancer patients and their family caregivers in China, this study translated and culturally adapted the Quality of Communication questionnaires for cancer patients (QOC-P) and their family caregivers (QOC-F) for use in the Chinese context and evaluated their psychometric properties. METHODS: The QOC-P and QOC-F were translated following an adapted version of Brislin's translation model and culturally adapted according to a Delphi expert panel. We pretested and refined the Chinese versions of the QOC-P and QOC-F among 16 dyads of patients and their family caregivers. Subsequently, we administered the questionnaires to 228 dyads of patients and their family caregivers who were recruited from six tertiary hospitals. The content validity, construct validity, convergent validity, and reliability of the QOC-P and QOC-F were examined. RESULTS: Through exploratory factor analysis, The QOC-P and QOC-F were divided into two dimensions: general communication and end-of-life communication. The Cronbach's coefficients ranged from 0.905 to 0.907 for the two subscales of the QOC-P and from 0.908 to 0.953 for the two subscales of the QOC-F. The two-week test-retest reliability was acceptable for both the QOC-P and QOC-F, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.993 and 0.991, respectively. The scale content validity index (QOC-P: 0.857, QOC-F: 1.0) and split-half reliability (QOC-P: 0.833, QOC-F: 0.935) were satisfactory. There was a negative correlation with anxiety and depression for both the QOC-P (r = -0.233 & -0.241, p < 0.001) and QOC-F (r = -0.464 & -0.420, p<0.001). The QOC-P showed a negative correlation with decision regret (r = -0.445, p<0.001) and a positive correlation with shared decision-making (r = 0.525, p<0.001), as hypothesized. CONCLUSION: The QOC-P and QOC-F show acceptable psychometric properties for evaluating the quality of communication between physicians and cancer patients and their family caregivers in both clinical and research contexts. Future studies should use more diverse and inclusive samples to test the structure of the Chinese version of the QOC-P and QOC-F with confirmatory factor analysis.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The early detection of individuals who require palliative care is essential for the timely initiation of palliative care services. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) Identify the screening instruments used by health professionals to promote early identification of patients who may benefit from palliative care; and (2) Assess the psychometric properties and clinical performance of the instruments. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, CNKI and Wanfang from inception to May 2023. We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments to assess the methodological quality of the development process for the instruments. The clinical performance of the instruments was assessed by narrative summary or meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted where necessary. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool. RESULTS: We included 31 studies that involved seven instruments. Thirteen studies reported the development and validation process of these instruments and 18 studies related to assessment of clinical performance of these instruments. The content validity of the instruments was doubtful or inadequate because of very low to moderate quality evidence. The pooled sensitivity (Se) ranged from 60.0% to 73.8%, with high heterogeneity (I2 of 88.15% to 99.36%). The pooled specificity (Sp) ranges from 70.4% to 90.2%, with high heterogeneity (I2 of 96.81% to 99.94%). The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) had better performance in hospitals than in general practice settings (Se=79.8% vs 45.3%, p=0.004; Sp=59.1% vs 97.0%, p=0.000). CONCLUSION: The clinical performance of existing instruments in identifying patients with palliative care needs early ranged from poor to reasonable. The SPICT is used most commonly, has better clinical performance than other instruments but performs better in hospital settings than in general practice settings.