Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Palliative Care 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Palliative Performance Scale: cross cultural adaptation and psychometric validation for Polish hospice setting

Authors: Tomasz Dzierżanowski, Tomasz Gradalski, Michael Kozlowski

Published in: BMC Palliative Care | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Measuring functional status in palliative care may help clinicians to assess a patient’s prognosis, recommend adequate therapy, avoid futile or aggressive medical care, consider hospice referral, and evaluate provided rehabilitation outcomes. An optimized, widely used, and validated tool is preferable. The Palliative Performance Scale Version 2 (PPSv2) is currently one of the most commonly used performance scales in palliative settings. The aim of this study is the psychometric validation process of a Polish translation of this tool (PPSv2-Polish).

Methods

Two hundred patients admitted to a free-standing hospice were evaluated twice, on the first and third day, for test-retest reliability. In the first evaluation, two different care providers independently evaluated the same patient to establish inter-rater reliability values. PPSv2-Polish was evaluated simultaneously with the Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (ECOG PS), and Barthel Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Index, to determine its construct validity.

Results

A high level of full agreement between test and retest was seen (63%), and a good intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.85 (P < 0.0001) was achieved. Excellent agreement between raters was observed when using PPSv2-Polish (Cohen’s kappa 0.91; P < 0.0001). Satisfactory correlations with the KPS and good correlations with ECOG PS and Barthel ADL were noticed. Persons who had shorter prognoses and were predominantly bedridden also had lower scores measured by the PPSv2-Polish, KPS and Barthel ADL. A strong correlation of 0.77 between PPSv2-Polish scores and survival time was noted (P < 0.0001). Moderate survival correlations were seen between KPS, ECOG PS, and Barthel ADL of 0.41; − 0.62; and 0.58, respectively (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

PPSv2-Polish is a valid and reliable tool measuring performance status in a hospice population and can be used in daily clinical practice in palliative care and research.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Looney F, Cobbe S, Ryan A, Barriscale I, McMahon A, Real S. The search for a functional outcome measure for physical therapy in specialist palliative care: an ongoing journey. Rehabil Oncol 2020. doi:10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000194. Looney F, Cobbe S, Ryan A, Barriscale I, McMahon A, Real S. The search for a functional outcome measure for physical therapy in specialist palliative care: an ongoing journey. Rehabil Oncol 2020. doi:10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000194.
2.
go back to reference Anderson F, Downing GM, Hill J, Casorso L, Lerch N. Palliative performance scale (PPS): a new tool. J Palliat Care. 1996;12:5–11.CrossRef Anderson F, Downing GM, Hill J, Casorso L, Lerch N. Palliative performance scale (PPS): a new tool. J Palliat Care. 1996;12:5–11.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ho F, Lau F, Downing MG, Lesperance M. A reliability and validity study of the palliative performance scale. BMC Palliat. Care. 2008;7:10.CrossRef Ho F, Lau F, Downing MG, Lesperance M. A reliability and validity study of the palliative performance scale. BMC Palliat. Care. 2008;7:10.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Myers J, Kim A, Flanagan J, Selby D. Palliative performance scale and survival among outpatients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:913–8.CrossRef Myers J, Kim A, Flanagan J, Selby D. Palliative performance scale and survival among outpatients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:913–8.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Gold Standard Framework. https://www.goldstandardsframework.org.uk/cdcontent/uploads/files/General Files/Prognostic Indicator Guidance October 2011.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2020. Gold Standard Framework. https://​www.​goldstandardsfra​mework.​org.​uk/​cdcontent/​uploads/​files/​General Files/Prognostic Indicator Guidance October 2011.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2020.
6.
go back to reference Leppert W, Forycka M, de Walden-Gałuszko K, Majkowicz M, Buss T. Quality of life assessment in cancer patients – recommendations for the staff of oncology and palliative care units. Psychoonkologia. 2014;1:17–29. Leppert W, Forycka M, de Walden-Gałuszko K, Majkowicz M, Buss T. Quality of life assessment in cancer patients – recommendations for the staff of oncology and palliative care units. Psychoonkologia. 2014;1:17–29.
7.
go back to reference Lau F, Downing GM, Lesperance M, Shaw J, Kuziemsky C. Use of palliative performance scale in end-of-life prognostication. J Palliat Med. 2006;9:1066–75.CrossRef Lau F, Downing GM, Lesperance M, Shaw J, Kuziemsky C. Use of palliative performance scale in end-of-life prognostication. J Palliat Med. 2006;9:1066–75.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Cha ES, Kim KH, Erlen JA. Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: issues and techniques. J Adv Nurs. 2007;58:386–95.CrossRef Cha ES, Kim KH, Erlen JA. Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: issues and techniques. J Adv Nurs. 2007;58:386–95.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Karnofsky DA, Abelmann WH, Craver LF, Burchenal JH. The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. Cancer. 1948;1:634–56.CrossRef Karnofsky DA, Abelmann WH, Craver LF, Burchenal JH. The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. Cancer. 1948;1:634–56.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Péus D, Newcomb N, Hofer S. Appraisal of the Karnofsky performance status and proposal of a simple algorithmic system for its evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:1.CrossRef Péus D, Newcomb N, Hofer S. Appraisal of the Karnofsky performance status and proposal of a simple algorithmic system for its evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:1.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Zimmermann C, Burman D, Bandukwala S, Seccareccia D, Kaya E, Bryson J, Rodin G, Lo C. Nurse and physician inter-rater agreement of three performance status measures in palliative care outpatients. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:609–16.CrossRef Zimmermann C, Burman D, Bandukwala S, Seccareccia D, Kaya E, Bryson J, Rodin G, Lo C. Nurse and physician inter-rater agreement of three performance status measures in palliative care outpatients. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:609–16.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Jang RW, Caraiscos VB, Swami N, Banerjee S, Mak E, Kaya E, Rodin G, Bryson J, Ridley JZ, Le LW, Zimmermann C. Simple prognostic model for patients with advanced Cancer based on performance status. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10:e335–41.CrossRef Jang RW, Caraiscos VB, Swami N, Banerjee S, Mak E, Kaya E, Rodin G, Bryson J, Ridley JZ, Le LW, Zimmermann C. Simple prognostic model for patients with advanced Cancer based on performance status. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10:e335–41.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Oken M, Creech R, Tormey D, Horton J, Davis T, McFadden E, Carbone P. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982:649–56. Oken M, Creech R, Tormey D, Horton J, Davis T, McFadden E, Carbone P. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982:649–56.
14.
go back to reference Roila F, Lupattelli M, Sassi M, Basurto C, Bracarda S, Picciafuoco M, Boschetti E, Milella G, Ballatori E, Tonato M, Del Favero A. Intra and interobserver variability in cancer patients’ performance status assessed according to Karnofsky and ECOG scales. Ann Oncol. 1991;2:437–9.CrossRef Roila F, Lupattelli M, Sassi M, Basurto C, Bracarda S, Picciafuoco M, Boschetti E, Milella G, Ballatori E, Tonato M, Del Favero A. Intra and interobserver variability in cancer patients’ performance status assessed according to Karnofsky and ECOG scales. Ann Oncol. 1991;2:437–9.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Taylor AE, Olver IN, Sivanthan T, Chi M, Purnell C. Observer error in grading performance status in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 1999;7:332–5.CrossRef Taylor AE, Olver IN, Sivanthan T, Chi M, Purnell C. Observer error in grading performance status in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 1999;7:332–5.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Mahoney, Florence; W Barthel D Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index Md State Med J 1965; 14:56–61. Mahoney, Florence; W Barthel D Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index Md State Med J 1965; 14:56–61.
17.
go back to reference Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The barthel ADL index: a reliability study. Disabil Rehabil. 1988;10:61–3. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The barthel ADL index: a reliability study. Disabil Rehabil. 1988;10:61–3.
18.
go back to reference Wade DT, Collin C. The Barthel ADL index: a standard measure of physical disability. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10:64–7.CrossRef Wade DT, Collin C. The Barthel ADL index: a standard measure of physical disability. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10:64–7.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Shamin T. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anesth. 2019;13:281.CrossRef Shamin T. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anesth. 2019;13:281.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Chow R, Zimmermann C, Bruera E, Temel J, Im J, Lock M. Inter-rater reliability in performance status assessment between clinicians and patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2019. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002080. Chow R, Zimmermann C, Bruera E, Temel J, Im J, Lock M. Inter-rater reliability in performance status assessment between clinicians and patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2019. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002080.
21.
go back to reference Datta SS, Ghosal N, Daruvala R, Chakraborty S, Shrimali RK, Van Zanten C, Parry J, Agrawal S, Atreya S, Sinha S, Chatterjee S, Gollins S. How do clinicians rate patient’s performance status using the ECOG performance scale? A mixed-methods exploration of variability in decision-making in oncology. Ecancermedicalscience. 2019;13:1–23. Datta SS, Ghosal N, Daruvala R, Chakraborty S, Shrimali RK, Van Zanten C, Parry J, Agrawal S, Atreya S, Sinha S, Chatterjee S, Gollins S. How do clinicians rate patient’s performance status using the ECOG performance scale? A mixed-methods exploration of variability in decision-making in oncology. Ecancermedicalscience. 2019;13:1–23.
22.
go back to reference Abernethy AP, Shelby-James T, Fazekas BS, Woods D, Currow DC. The Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481]. BMC Palliat Care. 2005;4:1–12. Abernethy AP, Shelby-James T, Fazekas BS, Woods D, Currow DC. The Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481]. BMC Palliat Care. 2005;4:1–12.
23.
go back to reference Campos S, Zhang L, Sinclair E, Tsao M, Barnes EA, Danjoux C, Sahgal A, Goh P, Culleton S, Mitera G, Chow E. The palliative performance scale: examining its inter-rater reliability in an outpatient palliative radiation oncology clinic. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:685–90.CrossRef Campos S, Zhang L, Sinclair E, Tsao M, Barnes EA, Danjoux C, Sahgal A, Goh P, Culleton S, Mitera G, Chow E. The palliative performance scale: examining its inter-rater reliability in an outpatient palliative radiation oncology clinic. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:685–90.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Kutner JS, Bryant LL, Beaty BL, Fairclough DL. Symptom distress and quality-of-life assessment at the end of life: the role of proxy response. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2006;32:300–10.CrossRef Kutner JS, Bryant LL, Beaty BL, Fairclough DL. Symptom distress and quality-of-life assessment at the end of life: the role of proxy response. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2006;32:300–10.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hui D, Ross J, Park M, Dev R, Vidal M, Liu D, Paiva CE, Bruera E. Predicting survival in patients with advanced cancer in the last weeks of life: how accurate are prognostic models compared to clinicians’ estimates? Palliat Med. 2019;026921631987326. Hui D, Ross J, Park M, Dev R, Vidal M, Liu D, Paiva CE, Bruera E. Predicting survival in patients with advanced cancer in the last weeks of life: how accurate are prognostic models compared to clinicians’ estimates? Palliat Med. 2019;026921631987326.
26.
go back to reference Selby D, Chakraborty A, Lilien T, Stacey E, Zhang L, Myers J. Clinician accuracy when estimating survival duration: the role of the patient’s performance status and time-based prognostic categories. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;42:578–88.CrossRef Selby D, Chakraborty A, Lilien T, Stacey E, Zhang L, Myers J. Clinician accuracy when estimating survival duration: the role of the patient’s performance status and time-based prognostic categories. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;42:578–88.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Palliative Performance Scale: cross cultural adaptation and psychometric validation for Polish hospice setting
Authors
Tomasz Dzierżanowski
Tomasz Gradalski
Michael Kozlowski
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Palliative Care / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-684X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00563-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Palliative Care 1/2020 Go to the issue