A brief, patient- and proxy-reported outcome measure in advanced illness: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS)

230Citations
Citations of this article
234Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Few measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care. Aim: To validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. Design: Concurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale – both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test–retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change). Setting/participants: In all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany Results: We confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher – reflecting more problems – in those patients with ‘unstable’ or ‘deteriorating’ versus ‘stable’ Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p < 0.001). Good convergent and discriminant validity to hypothesised items and subscales of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General is demonstrated. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows good internal consistency (α = 0.77) and acceptable to good test–retest reliability (60% of items kw > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good. Conclusion: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, determine the impact of healthcare interventions, and demonstrate quality of care. This represents a major step forward internationally for palliative care outcome measurement.

References Powered by Scopus

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data

60281Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling

18039Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires

7763Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Psychological burden in family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer at initiation of specialist inpatient palliative care

66Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Randomised clinical trial: palliative long-term abdominal drains vs large-volume paracentesis in refractory ascites due to cirrhosis

46Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline: palliative care for people with COPD or interstitial lung disease

43Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Murtagh, F. E. M., Ramsenthaler, C., Firth, A., Groeneveld, E. I., Lovell, N., Simon, S. T., … Bausewein, C. (2019). A brief, patient- and proxy-reported outcome measure in advanced illness: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS). Palliative Medicine, 33(8), 1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216319854264

Readers over time

‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25015304560

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 62

65%

Researcher 21

22%

Lecturer / Post doc 7

7%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Nursing and Health Professions 41

43%

Medicine and Dentistry 40

42%

Psychology 8

8%

Social Sciences 6

6%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 24

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0