German version of the Death Attitudes Profile- Revised (DAP-GR) - translation and validation of a multidimensional measurement of attitudes towards death.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, only limited data are available on attitudes towards death. Existing measurements are complex and time consuming, and data on psychometric properties are limited. The Death Attitude Profile- Revised (DAP-R) captures attitudes towards dying and death. The measure consists of 32 items, which are assigned to 5 dimensions (Fear of Death, Death Avoidance, Neutral Acceptance, Approach Acceptance, Escape Acceptance). It has been translated and tested in several countries, but no German version exists to date. This study reports the translation of the Death Attitudes Profile-Revised (DAP-R) into German (DAP-GR) using a cross-cultural adaption process methodology and its psychometric assessment. METHODS: The DAP-R was translated following guidelines for cultural adaption. A total of 216 medical students of the Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf participated in this study. Interrater reliability was investigated by means of Kendall's W concordance coefficient. The internal consistency of the DAP-GR Scales was assessed with Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Split-half reliability was estimated using Spearman-Brown coefficients. Convergent validity was measured by Spearman's correlation coefficient. Content validity was assessed by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 24 and AMOS 22. RESULTS: The items showed fair to good interrater reliability, with W-values ranging from .30 to .79. Internal consistency of the five subscales ranged from .61 (Neutral Acceptance) to .94 (Approach Acceptance). Split-half reliability was good, with a Spearman-Brown-coefficient of .83. The results of CFA slightly diverged from the original scale. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest overall good reliability of the German version of the DAP-R. The DAP-GR promises to be a robust instrument to establish normative data on death attitudes for use in German-speaking countries.

Patients' perception of types of errors in palliative care - results from a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Medical errors have been recognized as a relevant public health concern and research efforts to improve patient safety have increased. In palliative care, however, studies on errors are rare and mainly focus on quantitative measures. We aimed to explore how palliative care patients perceive and think about errors in palliative care and to generate an understanding of patients' perception of errors in that specialty. METHODS: A semistructured qualitative interview study was conducted with patients who had received at least 1 week of palliative care in an inpatient or outpatient setting. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed according to qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Twelve patients from two centers were interviewed (7 women, median age 63.5 years, range 22-90 years). Eleven patients suffered from a malignancy. Days in palliative care ranged from 10 to 180 days (median 28 days). 96 categories emerged which were summed up under 11 umbrella terms definition, difference, type, cause, consequence, meaning, recognition, handling, prevention, person causing and affected person. A deductive model was developed assigning umbrella terms to error-theory-based factor levels (definition, type and process-related factors). 23 categories for type of error were identified, including 12 categories that can be considered as palliative care specific. On the level of process-related factors 3 palliative care specific categories emerged (recognition, meaning and consequence of errors). CONCLUSION: From the patients' perspective, there are some aspects of errors that could be considered as specific to palliative care. As the results of our study suggest, these palliative care-specific aspects seem to be very important from the patients' point of view and should receive further investigation. Moreover, the findings of this study can serve as a guide to further assess single aspects or categories of errors in palliative care in future research.