Development of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity

Author:

Wallace Cara L.1ORCID,Subramaniam Divya S.2,Wray Ricardo3,Bullock Karen4,Dant Dani3,Coccia Kathryn5,Bennett Antonia V.6,White Patrick7,Hendricks-Ferguson Verna L.1

Affiliation:

1. Trudy Busch Valentine School of Nursing, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA

2. Department of Health and Clinical Outcomes, Advanced Health Data (AHEAD) Institute, School of Medicine, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA

3. Department of Behavioral Science and Health Equity, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA

4. School of Social Work, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

5. School of Social Work, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA

6. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

7. Division of Palliative Medicine, School of Medicine, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO, USA

Abstract

Context For many, the perception of “hospice” is synonymous with “death.” Even clinicians struggle to have conversations that distinguish between hospice and palliative care for fear that discussing hospice may diminish hope. To date, there are no existing measurement tools to evaluate patient and family perceptions of hospice care. Objective This research aimed to develop a Hospice Perceptions Instrument (HPI) to capture these perceptions among diverse patients and families. Methods Building on previous studies and literature, 79 potential items were drafted for the instrument. Our interprofessional team independently and collectively evaluated these, resulting in 36 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Overarching domains include (1) hospice philosophy and definitions; (2) hospice services; (3) values; and (4) counter-perceptions. Sixteen national subject matter experts from various professions and roles were invited to participate in the content-validity index and five hospice caregivers were invited to participate in face validity. Results Fourteen experts responded, with ten meeting inclusion criteria: one physician, four nurses, three social workers, and two chaplains. Six of the ten identified as Black. Three items were removed (I-CVI ranged from 0.5-06), and nine items were revised (I-CVI ranged from 0.6-07). The overall Content Validity Index (CVI) was 0.83, indicating excellent content validity. After revisions, five hospice caregivers assessed face validity and no changes were made based on feedback. Conclusion Results reveal a disconnect between professional expertise and patient/family voices related to hospice perceptions. Development of this instrument invites a better understanding of perceptions leading to new opportunities for patient/family engagement.

Funder

Cambia Health Foundation, Sojourns Scholar Leadership Program

Publisher

SAGE Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3