Achieving consensus on priority items for paediatric palliative care outcome measurement: Results from a modified Delphi survey, engagement with a children’s research involvement group and expert item generation

Author:

Coombes Lucy12ORCID,Harðardóttir Daney1,Braybrook Debbie1ORCID,Scott Hannah May1ORCID,Bristowe Katherine1ORCID,Ellis-Smith Clare1ORCID,Fraser Lorna K1ORCID,Downing Julia13,Bluebond-Langner Myra45ORCID,Murtagh Fliss EM6ORCID,Harding Richard1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. King’s College London, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery and Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK

2. Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK

3. International Children’s Palliative Care Network, Kampala, Uganda

4. University College London, Louis Dundas Centre for Children’s Palliative Care, London, UK

5. Rutgers University, Camden, NJ, USA

6. Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK

Abstract

Background: There is no validated outcome measure for use in children’s palliative care outside sub-Saharan Africa. Stakeholders must be involved in the development of such measures to ensure face and content validity. Aim: To gain expert stakeholder consensus on items for inclusion in a paediatric palliative care outcome measure to establish face and content validity. Design: This study was conducted in two phases following Rothrock and COSMIN guidance on patient-reported outcome measure development. Phase 1: Three-round modified Delphi survey to establish consensus on priority items. Phase 2: Item generation meeting with key stakeholders to develop initial measure versions. A young person’s advisory group was also consulted on priority outcomes. Setting and participants: Delphi survey: Parents and professionals with experience of caring for a child with a life-limiting condition. Young person’s advisory group: young people age 10–20 years. Item generation meeting: bereaved parents, academics and clinicians. Results: Phase 1: Delphi survey ( n = 82). Agreement increased from Kendall’s W = 0.17 to W = 0.61, indicating movement towards consensus. Agreement between professional and parent ranking was poor (Cohen’s kappa 0.13). Professionals prioritised physical symptoms, whereas parents prioritised psychosocial and practical concerns. Advisory group: Children ( n = 22) prioritised items related to living a ‘normal life’ in addition to items prioritised by adult participants. Phase 2: Five age/developmental stage appropriate child and proxy-reported versions of C-POS, containing 13 items, were drafted. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance and feasibility of involving key stakeholders in PROM item generation, as important differences were found in the priority outcomes identified by children, parents and professionals.

Funder

h2020 european research council

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

Reference49 articles.

1. Estimating the Global Need for Palliative Care for Children: A Cross-sectional Analysis

2. Together for Short Lives. Introduction to children’s palliative care, https://www.togetherforshortlives.org.uk/changing-lives/supporting-care-professionals/introduction-childrens-palliative-care/ (2019, accessed 31 May 2022).

3. Specialist paediatric palliative care services: what are the benefits?

4. Estimating the current and future prevalence of life-limiting conditions in children in England

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