The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity of the support team assessment schedule: do staffs' ratings reflect those made by patients or their families?
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the validity of the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS), a measure of the outcome of palliative care, through comparisons with the views of patients and family members. STAS ratings completed by two support teams were compared with (1) patients' ratings and (2) family member/carer ratings of seven (of the total 17 STAS) items, collected by independent interviewers. Of 183 patients referred to the teams, 84 (46%) were interviewed and 99 (54%) could not be contacted. Sixty-seven patients had family members or carers, all of whom were interviewed. Tests for agreement between team and patient were high for four items, and showed moderate correlations (Spearman's rho ranged 0.45-0.66) for five items, excepting two items including family needs. The summed scores for seven items were correlated, rho = 0.66, p < 0.0001. Where differences were found, team members identified more problems than patients' self-ratings, except for one item, 'pain control', where team members identified fewer problems. Team ratings were usually closer to those of the patients than to those of the family member; a team rating often lay between the patient's and family member's rating. The STAS is a measure of professional assessment which is independent from, although based on, the patient and family. The results support the validity of STAS as a measure of the outcome of palliative care from the perspective of a palliative care team.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Cited by
Palliative Performance Scale (PPS): A New Tool
Anderson, F., Downing, G. M., Hill, J., Casorso, L., & Lerch, N. (1996) · Journal of Palliative Care · doi:10.1177/082585979601200102 · Cited by 1,052
Patient-Focused, Family-Centered End-of-Life Medical Care
Teno, J. M., Casey, V. A., Welch, L. C., & Edgman-Levitan, S. (2001) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/s0885-3924(01)00335-9 · Cited by 305
Conceptualizing prognostic awareness in advanced cancer: A systematic review
Applebaum, A. J., Kolva, E. A., Kulikowski, J. R., Jacobs, J. D., DeRosa, A., Lichtenthal, W. G., Olden, M. E., Rosenfeld, B., & Breitbart, W. (2014) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105313484782 · Cited by 145
Metadata
- Authors
- Higginson, I. J., & McCarthy, M.
- Venue
- Palliative Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-07
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 219-228
- ISSN
- 0269-2163 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-030X
- OpenAlex
- W2042373315
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Validity of the support team assessment schedule: do staffs' ratings reflect those made by patients or their families? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/026921639300700309
- The paper
- Higginson, I. J., & McCarthy, M. (1993). Validity of the support team assessment schedule: do staffs' ratings reflect those made by patients or their families? Palliative Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/026921639300700309
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.