Inter-rating reliability of the Swiss easy-read integrated palliative care outcome scale for people with dementia.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
15
08
2022
accepted:
10
05
2023
medline:
4
8
2023
pubmed:
2
8
2023
entrez:
2
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for People with Dementia is a promising instrument for nursing home quality improvement and research in dementia care. It enables frontline staff in nursing homes to understand and rate the needs and concerns of people with dementia. We recently adapted the measure to include easy language for users from various educational backgrounds. In this study, we examine the inter-rating reliability of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for People with Dementia for frontline staff in nursing homes. In this secondary analysis of an experimental study, 317 frontline staff members in 23 Swiss nursing homes assessed 240 people with dementia from a convenience sample. Reliability for individual items was computed using Fleiss Kappa. Because of the nested nature of the primary data, a generalisability and dependability study was performed for an experimental IPOS-Dem sum score. The individual Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for People with Dementia items showed kappa values between .38 (95% CI .3-.48) and .15 (95% CI .08-.22). For the experimental IPOS-Dem sum score, a dependability index of .57 was found. The different ratings and time between ratings explain less than 2% of the variance in the sum score. The different nursing homes make up 12% and the people with dementia make up 43% of the sum score variance. The dependability study indicates that an experimental IPOS-Dem sum score could be acceptable for research by averaging two ratings. Limited research has been conducted on the measurement error and reliability of patient-centred outcome measures for people with dementia who are living in nursing homes. The Swiss Easy-Read IPOS-Dem is a promising instrument but requires further improvement to be reliable for research or decision making. Future studies may look at its measurement properties for different rater populations or at different stages of dementia. Furthermore, there is a need to establish the construct validity and internal consistency of the easy-read IPOS-Dem.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for People with Dementia is a promising instrument for nursing home quality improvement and research in dementia care. It enables frontline staff in nursing homes to understand and rate the needs and concerns of people with dementia. We recently adapted the measure to include easy language for users from various educational backgrounds.
OBJECTIVES
In this study, we examine the inter-rating reliability of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for People with Dementia for frontline staff in nursing homes.
METHODS
In this secondary analysis of an experimental study, 317 frontline staff members in 23 Swiss nursing homes assessed 240 people with dementia from a convenience sample. Reliability for individual items was computed using Fleiss Kappa. Because of the nested nature of the primary data, a generalisability and dependability study was performed for an experimental IPOS-Dem sum score.
RESULTS
The individual Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for People with Dementia items showed kappa values between .38 (95% CI .3-.48) and .15 (95% CI .08-.22). For the experimental IPOS-Dem sum score, a dependability index of .57 was found. The different ratings and time between ratings explain less than 2% of the variance in the sum score. The different nursing homes make up 12% and the people with dementia make up 43% of the sum score variance. The dependability study indicates that an experimental IPOS-Dem sum score could be acceptable for research by averaging two ratings.
CONCLUSION
Limited research has been conducted on the measurement error and reliability of patient-centred outcome measures for people with dementia who are living in nursing homes. The Swiss Easy-Read IPOS-Dem is a promising instrument but requires further improvement to be reliable for research or decision making. Future studies may look at its measurement properties for different rater populations or at different stages of dementia. Furthermore, there is a need to establish the construct validity and internal consistency of the easy-read IPOS-Dem.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37531385
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286557
pii: PONE-D-22-22847
pmc: PMC10395940
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0286557Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Spichiger et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
AK, FS, PL and TV are the translators/developers of the Swiss easy-read IPOS-Dem. The Swiss easy-read IPOS- Dem is a secondary outcome measure in a trial where AK is the Principal Investigator. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Front Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 21;11:699
pubmed: 32792997
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:233-45
pubmed: 26319270
BMC Geriatr. 2020 Oct 30;20(1):434
pubmed: 33126855
BMJ. 2011 Jul 15;343:d4065
pubmed: 21765198
Psychiatry Investig. 2016 Jan;13(1):43-9
pubmed: 26766945
Patient. 2019 Apr;12(2):183-197
pubmed: 30141020
Palliat Med. 2018 Dec;32(10):1584-1595
pubmed: 30273519
Pflege. 2014 Feb;27(1):31-40
pubmed: 24571846
J Adv Nurs. 2021 Oct;77(10):4234-4245
pubmed: 34235765
BMC Med. 2016 Feb 26;14:38
pubmed: 26920369
Pflege. 2014 Feb;27(1):19-29
pubmed: 24571845
Ann Palliat Med. 2018 Oct;7(Suppl 3):S253-S261
pubmed: 30180734
Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2003 Summer;17(2):101-16
pubmed: 12880216
J Indian Med Assoc. 2009 Jun;107(6):403-5
pubmed: 19886379
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Qual Life Res. 2012 May;21(4):671-84
pubmed: 21814875
Med Care. 2005 May;43(5):493-9
pubmed: 15838415
BMC Palliat Care. 2021 Aug 25;20(1):131
pubmed: 34433457
Qual Life Res. 1995 Aug;4(4):293-307
pubmed: 7550178
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 11;13(7):e0200240
pubmed: 29995932
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Dec;42(6):852-63
pubmed: 21620642
Stat Med. 2001 Nov 15;20(21):3205-14
pubmed: 11746313
Palliat Med. 2021 May;35(5):962-971
pubmed: 33863246
Int Psychogeriatr. 2017 Sep 4;:1-11
pubmed: 28866990
Int Psychogeriatr. 1992;4 Suppl 1:55-69
pubmed: 1504288
Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2022 May 4;8:23337214221090803
pubmed: 35529694
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007 Jun;22(6):549-56
pubmed: 17152121
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 Apr;49(4):666-79
pubmed: 25205231
Pain Res Treat. 2018 Aug 1;2018:7281657
pubmed: 30155298
BMC Geriatr. 2016 Jun 18;16:126
pubmed: 27317476
Palliat Med. 2014 Mar;28(3):197-209
pubmed: 23828874
Lancet. 2018 Apr 7;391(10128):1391-1454
pubmed: 29032993
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022 Feb 15;6(1):14
pubmed: 35169943
Lancet. 2020 Aug 8;396(10248):413-446
pubmed: 32738937
Palliat Med. 2017 Jul;31(7):651-660
pubmed: 28618899
Palliat Med. 2019 Sep;33(8):1045-1057
pubmed: 31185804
Disabil Health J. 2016 Oct;9(4):719-23
pubmed: 27431767
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Jul;7(7):e883-e892
pubmed: 31129125
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Jun 05;11:91
pubmed: 23738658
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Int J Nurs Stud. 2011 Jun;48(6):661-71
pubmed: 21514934
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Dec 12;12:177
pubmed: 25495548