Multimedialna platforma wiedzy medycznej Internetowa Księgarnia Medyczna Kalendarium Konferencji
Palliative Medicine in Practice
MENU
Shortcuts Submit an article Author Guidelines Reviewers 2023 Editorial Team Focus and Scope

open access

Vol 15, No 2 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-05-20
View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: Psychometric validation of six-point Verbal Rating Scale in Polish hospice setting

Alicja Hołoń1, Tomasz Grądalski1
DOI: 10.5603/PMPI.2021.0017
·
Palliat Med Pract 2021;15(2):144-152.
Affiliations
  1. St. Lazarus Hospice, Fatimska 17, 31-831 Krakow, Poland

open access

Vol 15, No 2 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-05-20

Abstract

Introduction: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) quantifying the most common symptoms rated in the numerical rating scale (NRS) for some respondents are cumbersome or incomprehensible. The study aimed to introduce, implement and validate psychometric properties of the ESAS (revisited) six-point Verbal Rating Scale — Polish version (ESAS-r 6VRS-PL) into a Polish hospice setting.

Methods: In a cross-sectional, observational prospective psychometric validation study the adult advanced cancer patients admitted to a hospice were evaluated twice for test-retest reliability. Each patient’s evaluation encompassed the ESAS-r 6VRS-PL, which was compared on the first day with the validated Polish version of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C15-PAL, considered the gold standard, to accomplish its external construct validity.

Results: Of the 57 patients enrolled 48 were evaluated twice and 9 (15.5%) dropped out. All respondents were able to describe their symptoms in < 15 minutes independently without any need to clarify the meaning of the questions and only occasionally with assistance in reading the questions or answers. The high intraclass correlation coefficient of the ESAS Global Distress Score was noted (0.825; 95%CI 0.723–0.888). Similar items of the ESAS-r 6VRS-PL and QLQ-C15-PAL showed moderate correlations (range 0.59–0.65; p < 0.001). The internal consistency of the ESAS-r 6VRS-PL measured using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was fairly high, reaching 0.723 (item range 0.664–0.734).

Conclusion: The ESAS-r 6VRS-PL is a simple, valid, reliable and feasible test that allows estimating the QoL in advanced cancer patients.

Abstract

Introduction: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) quantifying the most common symptoms rated in the numerical rating scale (NRS) for some respondents are cumbersome or incomprehensible. The study aimed to introduce, implement and validate psychometric properties of the ESAS (revisited) six-point Verbal Rating Scale — Polish version (ESAS-r 6VRS-PL) into a Polish hospice setting.

Methods: In a cross-sectional, observational prospective psychometric validation study the adult advanced cancer patients admitted to a hospice were evaluated twice for test-retest reliability. Each patient’s evaluation encompassed the ESAS-r 6VRS-PL, which was compared on the first day with the validated Polish version of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C15-PAL, considered the gold standard, to accomplish its external construct validity.

Results: Of the 57 patients enrolled 48 were evaluated twice and 9 (15.5%) dropped out. All respondents were able to describe their symptoms in < 15 minutes independently without any need to clarify the meaning of the questions and only occasionally with assistance in reading the questions or answers. The high intraclass correlation coefficient of the ESAS Global Distress Score was noted (0.825; 95%CI 0.723–0.888). Similar items of the ESAS-r 6VRS-PL and QLQ-C15-PAL showed moderate correlations (range 0.59–0.65; p < 0.001). The internal consistency of the ESAS-r 6VRS-PL measured using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was fairly high, reaching 0.723 (item range 0.664–0.734).

Conclusion: The ESAS-r 6VRS-PL is a simple, valid, reliable and feasible test that allows estimating the QoL in advanced cancer patients.

Full Text:

View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

Keywords

Polish ESAS; validation studies; palliative care, patient-reported outcome measures

About this article
Title

Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: Psychometric validation of six-point Verbal Rating Scale in Polish hospice setting

Journal

Palliative Medicine in Practice

Issue

Vol 15, No 2 (2021)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

144-152

Published online

2021-05-20

Page views

693

Article views/downloads

1256

DOI

10.5603/PMPI.2021.0017

Bibliographic record

Palliat Med Pract 2021;15(2):144-152.

Keywords

Polish ESAS
validation studies
palliative care
patient-reported outcome measures

Authors

Alicja Hołoń
Tomasz Grądalski

References (42)
  1. Leppert W, Forycka M, de WaG, et al. Quality of life assessment in cancer patients – recommendations for the staff of oncology and palliative care units. Psychoonkologia. 2014; 1: 17–29.
  2. WHO Quality of Life Definition. https://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/whoqol-qualityoflife/en/ (16 April 2020).
  3. National Palliative Care Research Centre. http://www.npcrc.org/content/25/Measurement-and-Evaluation-Tools.aspx (26 April 2020).
  4. Nekolaichuk C, Watanabe S, Beaumont C. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: a 15-year retrospective review of validation studies (1991--2006). Palliat Med. 2008; 22(2): 111–122.
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. Pautex S, Vayne-Bossert P, Bernard M, et al. Validation of the French Version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017; 54(5): 721–726.e1.
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. Wong A, Tayjasanant S, Rodriguez-Nunez A, et al. Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale Time Duration of Self-Completion Versus Assisted Completion in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Comparison. Oncologist. 2021; 26(2): 165–171.
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. Brooks JV, Poague C, Formagini T, et al. The Role of a Symptom Assessment Tool in Shaping Patient-Physician Communication in Palliative Care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020; 59(1): 30–38.
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. Parsons HA, Shukkoor A, Quan H, et al. Intermittent subcutaneous opioids for the management of cancer pain. J Palliat Med. 2008; 11(10): 1319–1324.
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. Jordhøy MS, Kaasa S, Fayers P, et al. Challenges in palliative care research; recruitment, attrition and compliance: experience from a randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med. 1999; 13(4): 299–310.
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. Wysham NG, Miriovsky BJ, Currow DC, et al. Practical Dyspnea Assessment: Relationship Between the 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale and the Four-Level Categorical Verbal Descriptor Scale of Dyspnea Intensity. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015; 50(4): 480–487.
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. Aktas A, Walsh D, Kirkova J. The psychometric properties of cancer multisymptom assessment instruments: a clinical review. Support Care Cancer. 2015; 23(7): 2189–2202.
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. Gold Standard Framework. Gold Standard Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance. http://www.goldstandardsframework.org.uk/GSFInPrimary%2BCare.html (14 April 2020).
  13. ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group. ECOG Performance Status. https://ecog-acrin.org/resources/ecog-performance-status (14 April 2020).
  14. Oken M, Creech R, Tormey D, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY. 1982; 5(6): 649–656.
    CrossRef
  15. Leppert W, Majkowicz M. Validation of the Polish version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 15 - Palliative Care in patients with advanced cancer. Palliat Med. 2013; 27(5): 470–477.
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. 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 Palliat Care. 1991; 7(2): 6–9.
    PubMed
  17. Pautex S, Berger A, Chatelain C, et al. Symptom assessment in elderly cancer patients receiving palliative care. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003; 47(3): 281–286.
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. Tricou C, Ruer M, Nekolaichuk C, et al. Transcultural Validation of the French Version of the Modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale: The ESAS12-F. J Palliat Med. 2019; 22(12): 1553–1560.
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. Moro C, Brunelli C, Miccinesi G, et al. Edmonton symptom assessment scale: Italian validation in two palliative care settings. Support Care Cancer. 2006; 14(1): 30–37.
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. Noguera A, Centeno C, Carvajal A, et al. Spanish "fine tuning" of language to describe depression and anxiety. J Palliat Med. 2009; 12(8): 707–712.
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. Yesilbalkan O, Özkütük N, Karadakovan A, et al. Validity and reliability of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in Turkish cancer patients. Turkish J Cancer. 2008; 38: 62–67.
  22. Majkowicz M, Czuszyńska Z, Leppert W, et al. Praktyczne wykorzystanie skali ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) w opiece paliatywnej. Nowotwory J Oncol. 1998; 48: 2164–2171.
  23. Watanabe S, Nekolaichuk C, Beaumont C, et al. The Edmonton symptom assessment system--what do patients think? Support Care Cancer. 2009; 17(6): 675–683.
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. Garyali A, Palmer JL, Yennurajalingam S, et al. Errors in symptom intensity self-assessment by patients receiving outpatient palliative care. J Palliat Med. 2006; 9(5): 1059–1065.
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. Watanabe SM, Nekolaichuk C, Beaumont C, et al. A multicenter study comparing two numerical versions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System in palliative care patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011; 41(2): 456–468.
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. Stiel S, Matthes ME, Bertram L, et al. Validierung der neuen Fassung des Minimalen Dokumentationssystems (MIDOS2) für Patienten in der Palliativmedizin. Der Schmerz. 2010; 24(6): 596–604.
    CrossRef
  27. van der Baan FH, Koldenhof JJ, de Nijs EJ, et al. Validation of the Dutch version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Cancer Med. 2020; 9(17): 6111–6121.
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. Hui D, Shamieh O, Paiva CE, et al. Minimal clinically important differences in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in cancer patients: A prospective, multicenter study. Cancer. 2015; 121(17): 3027–3035.
    CrossRefPubMed
  29. Hui D, Shamieh O, Paiva CE, et al. Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Physical, Emotional, and Total Symptom Distress Scores of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016; 51(2): 262–269.
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. Johnstone PAS, Alla R, Yu HHM, et al. Patient-reported outcomes: using ESAS to screen for anemia. Support Care Cancer. 2020; 28(9): 4141–4145.
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. Barbera L, Sutradhar R, Seow H, et al. The impact of routine Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) use on overall survival in cancer patients: Results of a population-based retrospective matched cohort analysis. Cancer Med. 2020; 9(19): 7107–7115.
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. Barbera L, Sutradhar R, Earle CC, et al. The impact of routine Edmonton symptom assessment system use on receiving palliative care services: results of a population-based retrospective-matched cohort analysis. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2020 [Epub ahead of print].
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain. 1975; 1(3): 277–299.
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. Sedlak K. Arkusz Doznań Bólowych McGill. Unpublished Paper.
  35. Kołłątaj M, Wordliczek J, Dobrogowski J. Kwestionariusz do Oceny Bólu McGill (McGill Pain Questionnaire, MPQ) i skrócona wersja Kwestionariusza do Oceny Bólu McGill. Ból. 2013; 14(3): 10–13.
  36. Shamin T. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anesth. 2019; 13(3): 281.
    CrossRef
  37. Wong A, Tayjasanant S, Rodriguez-Nunez A, et al. Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale Time Duration of Self-Completion Versus Assisted Completion in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Comparison. Oncologist. 2021; 26(2): 165–171.
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. Van Laerhoven H, Van Der Zaag-Loonen HJ, Derkx BHF. A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children’s questionnaires. Acta Paediatr Int J Paediatr. 2004; 93(6): 830–835.
    CrossRef
  39. Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M. Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Cancer. 2000; 88(9): 2164–2171, doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000501)88:9<2164::aid-cncr24>3.0.co;2-5.
    PubMed
  40. Leppert W, Majkowicz M, Forycka M, et al. Quality of life assessment in advanced cancer patients treated at home, an inpatient unit, and a day care center. Onco Targets Ther. 2014; 7: 687–695.
    CrossRefPubMed
  41. Oldenmenger WH, de Raaf PJ, de Klerk C, et al. Cut points on 0-10 numeric rating scales for symptoms included in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in cancer patients: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013; 45(6): 1083–1093.
    CrossRefPubMed
  42. Yamaguchi T, Morita T, Nitto A, et al. Establishing Cutoff Points for Defining Symptom Severity Using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised Japanese Version. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016; 51(2): 292–297.
    CrossRefPubMed

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., ul. Świętokrzyska 73 , 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

phone:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl