open access

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

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

Alicja Hołoń, Tomasz Grądalski
DOI: 10.5603/PMPI.2021.0017
·
Palliat Med Pract 2021;15(2):144-152.

open access

Vol 15, No 2 (2021)
Original articles
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.

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

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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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].
  33. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain. 1975; 1(3): 277–299.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.

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.

Czasopismo Medycyna Paliatywna w Praktyce dostęne jest również w Ikamed - księgarnia medyczna

Wydawcą serwisu jest  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl