Validation of the French Version of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale

The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is a widely used tool for assessing patient needs in palliative care. The aim of this study was to provide a validated version of the patient and staff IPOS for French-speaking Switzerland (IPOS-Fr) and assess its psychometric properties. The valid...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of pain and symptom management 2019-11, Vol.58 (5), p.886-890.e5
Main Authors: Sterie, Anca-Cristina, Borasio, Gian Domenico, Bernard, Mathieu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
end-of-life care
French
French language
Health status
Hospice care
IPOS
missing data
Palliative care
Patients
psychometric validation
Quality of life
Quantitative psychology
Teams
Validity
Women
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is a widely used tool for assessing patient needs in palliative care. The aim of this study was to provide a validated version of the patient and staff IPOS for French-speaking Switzerland (IPOS-Fr) and assess its psychometric properties. The validation took place in 12 palliative care units and mobile teams. At baseline (T1) and three days later (T2), patients' general health status, palliative care needs (IPOS-Fr), and quality of life (McGill Quality of Life Scale–Revised) were assessed by patients and staff. We included 173 patients (mean age: 68.8; 92 women; 85% oncologic disease). IPOS internal consistency was high for the total score (0.69 and 0.71). Staff-patient interrater agreement was good to moderate for 13 items (intraclass correlations >0.516). Results indicated strong correlations between IPOS-Fr and McGill Quality of Life Scale–Revised for the total score (−0.623 at T1) and the psychological domain (Item 11: −0.601 at T1; Item 13: −0.633 at T2). Regarding sensitivity to change, there was a significant difference between T1 and T2 for patients with an improved health condition (z = −2.326; P = 0.020). IPOS-Fr has fair to good validity, especially with regard to interrater agreement and construct validity, is sensitive to positive change, and has good interpretability and acceptability for patients and staff. IPOS-Fr is not optimal in terms of internal consistency and structure when using subscale scores, except for the emotional subscale.
ISSN:0885-3924
1873-6513
DOI:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.012