Towards patient-centred cancer care: cross-cultural validity and responsiveness of the Turkish Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale
Mevhibe B Hocaoglu,Nilay Hepgul,India Tunnard,Emine Meltem,Hande Efe,Buse Ataoglu,Yeliz Lerzan Baybar,Merve Kınacıgil,Husam Elsharairi,Irene J Higginson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01535-5
2020-09-22
Abstract:Background: A valid measure to describe the most important needs and concerns of people with life-threatening illnesses is missing in Cyprus. Our aim was to adapt and test the cross-cultural validity and responsiveness of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) in a cohort of Turkish speaking cancer patients. Methods: The IPOS (English) patient-reported measure was translated into Turkish following published guidelines including, 2 independent forward, 2 independent blind backward translations, expert panel review by 7 members and field testing with 11 cognitive interviews (5 patients and 6 specialists) and final approval of the copyright holder. Consecutive cancer patients (n = 234) seen by the community palliative care services were recruited from Help Those with Cancer Society (KHYD); of those 82 were followed-up. The instrument was administered by personal interview. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to validate the factor structure of Turkish IPOS. Internal consistency reliability of the subscales was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient respectively. Validity was assessed by calculating Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) between Turkish IPOS scores and Turkish version of EQ-5D-3L - a validated generic measure of health status developed by the EuroQol Group. Results: Turkish IPOS is conceptually and semantically equivalent to the English version and linguistically valid. The CFA was inconclusive for the three factor structure due to low sample size, as the SRMR and CFI tests only approached the defined minimums warranting further investigation. There were low levels of missing values, and no ceiling or floor effects. The Physical (α = 0.91) and the Social and Quality of Care Issues (α = 0.75) sub-scales showed good internal consistencies, however Emotional sub-scale showed poor internal consistency (α = 0.64). The reliability of the Physical (ICC = 0.51, 0.45-0.56 95% CI) and Social Quality of Care Issues (ICC = 0.50, 0.42-0.57 95% CI) were moderate. Poor internal consistency (α =0.64) and reliability (ICC = 0.31, 0.24-0.39, 95% CI) was obtained for Emotional Subscale. Construct validity was evidenced through significant correlations in the predicted directions and strength with EQ-5D. Turkish IPOS showed higher needs and concerns in participants at more advanced stages than those at earlier stages of cancer. The standardized response mean (SRM) of - 0.94 suggested large internal responsiveness to clinical change. Conclusion: Turkish IPOS is a clear, relevant, acceptable measure and responsive to the needs and concerns of cancer patients, observing regional differences, it may have implications for use in other Turkish speaking communities. Future studies are needed to clarify the factor structure, assess its external responsiveness and to improve the properties of its Emotional subscale.