Psychometric Properties of the Needs Assessment Tool—Progressive Disease Cancer in U.K. Primary Care
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2018, 56 (4), pp. 602 - 612
- Issue Date:
- 2018-10-01
Closed Access
| Filename | Description | Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-s2.0-S0885392418303415-main.pdf | Published Version | 164.39 kB |
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
© 2018 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Background: The assessment of patients' needs for care is a critical step in achieving patient-centered cancer care. Tools can be used to assess needs and inform care planning. The Needs Assessment Tool:Progressive Disease–Cancer (NAT:PD-C) is an Australian oncology clinic tool for assessment by clinicians of patients' and carers' palliative care needs. This has not been validated in the U.K. primary care setting. Aim: The aim of this study was to test the psychometric properties and acceptability of a U.K. primary care adapted NAT:PD-C. Design: Reliability: NAT:PD-C–guided video-recorded consultations were viewed, rated, and rerated by clinicians. Weighted Fleiss' kappa and prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa statistics were used. Construct: During a consultation, general medical practitioners (GPs) used NAT:PD-C, patient measures (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale; Research Utilisation Group Activities of Daily Living; Palliative care Outcome Score; Australian Karnofsky Performance Scale), and carer measures (Carer Strain Index; Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool). Kendall's Tau-b was used. Setting/Participants: GPs, nurses, patients, and carers were recruited from primary care practices. Results: Reliability: All patients' well-being items and four of five items in the carer/family ability to care section showed adequate interrater reliability. There was moderate test-retest reliability for five of six in the patients' well-being section and five of five in the carer/family ability to care section. Construct: There was at least fair agreement for five of six of patients' well-being items; high for daily living (Kendall's Tau-b = 0.57, P < 0.001). The NAT:PD-C has adequate carer construct validity (five of eight) with strong agreement for two of eight patients. Over three-quarters of GPs considered the NAT:PD-C to have high acceptability. Conclusion: The NAT PD-C is reliable, valid, and acceptable in the UK primary care setting. Effectiveness in reducing patient and carer unmet needs and issues regarding implementation are yet to be evaluated.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: