Error message

  • Deprecated function: substr(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in ucsf_b1gfoot_global_watchdog() (line 56 of /mnt/www/html/ucsfsitebuilder01live/docroot/profiles/ucsf_b1gfoot/modules/b1gfoot/ucsf_b1gfoot_global/ucsf_b1gfoot_global.module).
  • Deprecated function: implode(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($separator) of type array|string is deprecated in csl_rendering_element->render() (line 342 of /mnt/www/html/ucsfsitebuilder01live/docroot/sites/all/modules/contrib/biblio/modules/CiteProc/CSL.inc).

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

TitleDevelopment of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2024
AuthorsWallace, CL, Subramaniam, DS, Wray, R, Bullock, K, Dant, D, Coccia, K, Bennett, AV, White, P, Hendricks-Ferguson, VL
JournalAm J Hosp Palliat Care
Pagination10499091241284262
Date Published2024 Sep 10
ISSN1938-2715
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.

DOI10.1177/10499091241284262
Alternate JournalAm J Hosp Palliat Care
PubMed ID39254988