Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 583

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care: the palliative care outcome scale. Palliative Care Core Audit Project Advisory Group.

Open access
Hearn, J, Higginson, I J·1999·Quality in Health Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To develop an outcome measure for patients with advanced cancer and their families which would cover more than either physical symptoms or quality of life related questions. To validate the measure in various specialist and non-specialist palliative care settings throughout the UK. DESIGN: A systematic literature review of measures appropriate for use in palliative care settings was conducted. In conjunction with a multidisciplinary project advisory group, questions were chosen for inclusion into the scale based on whether they measured aspects of physical, psychological, or spiritual domains pertinent to palliative care, and whether similar items had shown to be valid as part of another measure. A staff completed version was developed to facilitate data collection on all patients throughout their care, and a patient completed version was designed to enable the patient to contribute to the assessment of their outcomes when possible. A full validation study was conducted to evaluate construct validity, internal consistency, responsiveness to change over time, and test-retest reliability. Assessments were timed. SETTING: Eight centres in England and Scotland providing palliative care, including inpatient care, outpatient care, day care, home care, and primary care. PATIENTS: A total of 450 patients entered care during the study period. Staff collected data routinely on patients in care long enough to be assessed (n = 337). Of these, 262 were eligible for patient participation; 148 (33%) went on to complete a questionnaire. MAIN MEASURES: The Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS), the European Organisation for Research on Cancer Treatment, and the Support Team Assessment Schedule. RESULTS: The POS consists of two almost identical measures, one of which is completed by staff, the other by patients. Agreement between staff and patient ratings was found to be acceptable for eight out of 10 items at the first assessment. The measure demonstrated construct validity (Spearman rho = 0.43 to 0.80). Test/re-test reliability was acceptable for seven items. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.65 (patients), 0.70 (staff)). Change over time was shown, but did not reach statistical significance. The questionnaire did not take more than 10 minutes to complete by staff or patients. CONCLUSION: The POS has acceptable validity and reliability. It can be used to assess prospectively palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/qshc.8.4.219

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Eve A, Smith AM. Palliative care services in Britain and Ireland: update 1991. Pall Med 1994;8:19–27. · doi:10.1177/026921639400800104
  2. Standing Medical Advisory Committee. The principles and provision of palliative care. London: Joint report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee, 1992.
  3. Higginson IJ, McCarthy M. Validity of the support team assessment schedule: do staV’s ratings reflect those made by patients or their families? Pall Med 1993;7:219–28. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Hearn J, Higginson IJ. Outcome measures in palliative care for advanced cancer patients: a review. J Public Health Med 1997;19:193–9. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, et al. The Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Pall Care 1991;7:6– 9. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Cohen SR, Mount BM, Strobel MG, et al. The McGill quality of life questionnaire: a measure of quality of life appropriate for people with advanced disease. A preliminary study of validity and acceptability. Pall Med 1995;9: 207–19. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Ellershaw JE, Peat SJ, Boys LC. Assessing the eVectiveness of a hospital palliative care team. Pall Med 1995;9:145–52. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Higginson I. A community schedule. In: Higginson I, editor. Clinical audit in palliative care. Oxford: RadcliVe Medical Press 1993:34–7.
  9. McWhinney IR, Bass MJ, Donner A. Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls. BMJ 1995;309: 1340–2. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:743–60. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Higginson IJ. Clinical and organisational audit in palliative care. In: Doyle D, Hanks GWC, MacDonald N, editors. Oxford textbook of palliative medicine. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1998;2:67–81.
  12. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Eastern cooperative oncology group performance status scale. Am J Clin Oncol 1982;5:649–55. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J, et al. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-index for use by physicians. J Chronic Dis 1981;34:585–97. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Axelsson B, Sjoden PO. Quality of life of cancer patients and their spouses in palliative home care. Pall Med 1998;12:29– 39. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Rinck GC, van den Bos GAM, Kleijnen J, et al. Methodologic issues in palliative cancer care: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:1697–707. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Muldoon MF, Barger SD, Flory JD, et al. What are quality of life measurements measuring? BMJ 1998;316:542–5. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Edmonds PM, Stuttaford JM, Penny J, et al. Do hospital palliative care teams improve symptom control? Use of a modified STAS as an evaluation tool. Pall Med 1998;12: 345–51. · DOI
  18. Bowling A. Measuring disease: a review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1994.
  19. Higginson IJ. Clinical audit in palliative care. Oxford: RadcliVe Medical Press, 1993.

Cited by

See all 583

Metadata

Authors
Hearn, J., & Higginson, I. J.
Venue
Quality in Health Care
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-12
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
219-227
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 0963-8172
  • 1475-3901
OpenAlex
W1933522958
Cited by
583
References
2
FWCI
4.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care: the palliative care outcome scale. Palliative Care Core Audit Project Advisory Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qshc.8.4.219
The paper
Hearn, J., & Higginson, I. J. (1999). Development and validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care: the palliative care outcome scale. Palliative Care Core Audit Project Advisory Group. Quality in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.8.4.219

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.