Cara L. Wallace, Divya S. Subramaniam, Ricardo Wray, Karen Bullock, Dani Dant, Kathryn Coccia, Antonia V. Bennett, Patrick White, Verna L. Hendricks-Ferguson
{"title":"Development of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity","authors":"Cara L. Wallace, Divya S. Subramaniam, Ricardo Wray, Karen Bullock, Dani Dant, Kathryn Coccia, Antonia V. Bennett, Patrick White, Verna L. Hendricks-Ferguson","doi":"10.1177/10499091241284262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ContextFor 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.ObjectiveThis research aimed to develop a Hospice Perceptions Instrument (HPI) to capture these perceptions among diverse patients and families.MethodsBuilding 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.ResultsFourteen 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.ConclusionResults 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.","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":"10499091241284262"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091241284262","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ContextFor 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.ObjectiveThis research aimed to develop a Hospice Perceptions Instrument (HPI) to capture these perceptions among diverse patients and families.MethodsBuilding 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.ResultsFourteen 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.ConclusionResults 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.
期刊介绍:
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).