Table 3.
Level of tool validity for palliative care and chronic heart failure.
| Tool | Validity assessment performed | |
|---|---|---|
| Content | Criterion | |
| Integrated palliative care outcome scale (IPOS/POS) | Yes. Kane et al.29: interviews Oriani et al.30: secondary analysis of three studies | No |
| Needs assessment tools progressive disease—heart failure (NAT: PD-HF) | Yes. Waller et al.:31 Multidisciplinary expert panel | Yes. Waller et al.31: levels of physical (p = 0.039), daily living (p = 0.001) and spiritual/existential (p = 0.038) concerns were correlated with the Heart failure needs assessment (HFNAQ) item scores; levels of psychological (p = 0.155) and social (p = 0.304) concerns not. Janssen et al.32: levels of physical (p = 0.12), psychological (p = 0.71), daily living (p = 0.38) and caregiver distress (p = 0.33) concerns were not correlated with respectively the ESAS summary score, the ESAS distress score, the AKPS score the FACQ-PC caregivers distress score |
| RADboud indicators for PAlliative care needs (RADPAC) | Yes. Thoonsen et al.33: Literature review, focus groups with general practitioners and experts in the field, rand delphi process Thoonsen et al.35: Interviews |
No |
| Heart failure needs assessment questionnaire (HFNAQ) | No | No |
| Care related quality of life for chronic heart failure questionnaire (CareQol CHF) | No | No |
| Heart failure palliative approach to care (HeFPAC) | Yes. Strachan et al.42: literature review, focus groups and feedback | No |
| Nececidades paliativas (NECPAL) | No | No |
AKPS: Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance scale; ESAS: Edmonton Symptom Assessment System; FACQ-PC: Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire for Palliative Care; HFNAQ: Heart Failure Needs Assessment.