Psychometrics of the Persian version of Program in Palliative Care Education and Practice Questionnaire (German Revised - PPCEP-GR)

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2215379/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Psychometrics of the Persian version of Program in Palliative Care Education and Practice Questionnaire (German Revised - PPCEP-GR)

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2215379/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 23 Jun, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Palliative Care →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

In order to improve the provision of palliative care by nurses, it is necessary to have a tool that measures different dimensions of palliative care and the knowledge and performance of nurses in this field. The Program in Palliative Care Education and Practice Questionnaire (German Revised) is psychometrically evaluated for the first time in Iran.

Methods

To measure the psychometric properties of the tool, 360 nursing students (BSc, MSc, PhD) and clinical nurses completed the questionnaire. Validity of the tool was checked and quantitative and qualitative face validity of the tool was done by the target group. Then, content validity was evaluated by quantitative and qualitative methods (CVR-CVI) based on the opinions of the panel of experts. Construct validity of the instrument was performed with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA-CFA). The reliability of the instrument was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and calculating Composite reliability and Omega coefficient.

Results

After conducting construct validity and factor analysis. 4 factors (Knowledge and skill of managing patients' pain and symptoms, Management of ethical and psychological issues in patients, communicating with patients and their families & Management of patients' exposure to grief and attitudes towards death) were extracted from the tool. The total variance was equal to (%43) and Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Composite reliability for factors fluctuated between (0.721–0.891) and (0.702–0.903).

Conclusion

Persian version of the Program in Palliative Care Education and Practice Questionnaire (German Revised Version; PPCEP-GR) is a valid and reliable tool that can be used to measure the knowledge and performance of nurses and nursing graduates in the field of palliative care.

According to a report by the World Health Organization, about 40 million people need palliative care every year, and 78% of these people live mainly in poor and developing countries. However, only 14% of the people who need this type of care manage to receive it. The global need for palliative care is continuously on the rise as people age in different societies [1]. Palliative care is aimed to improve the quality of life of patients and their families in facing the problems associated with life-threatening diseases. It involves prevention, reduction, early diagnosis, and accurate assessment and treatment of pain and suffering as well as other physical, psychological, social, and spiritual problems [2]. A palliative care approach should be taken into account for people with cancer or any progressive or chronic illness as soon as the diagnosis of a life-threatening illness. Palliative care services should be incorporated at all levels of care in existing health systems [3].

Nurses play a key role in palliative care since among health care professionals, nurses are at the forefront of providing palliative care in almost all health care settings, including inpatient, outpatient, home care, and nursing homes [4].

There is a national and international consensus about the palliative care program, which includes recommendations for familiarizing students of medical sciences with the structure and processes of palliative care and promoting the quality of palliative care. However, evidence suggests that medical graduates have little, if any, knowledge of palliative care. Studies in Germany showed that in this country only 47% of palliative care education institutions have bedside care, and only 59% of them have direct contact with patients in palliative care [5]. A review of literature showed that there are significant deficiencies in the knowledge and skills of nurses in palliative care. The results of a study by Cleary in New York (2020) showed that the level of knowledge of nurses about palliative care is 44.5 [6]. Kim et al.'s study (2020) in Mongolia showed that the knowledge level of nurses in relation to palliative care is 40% [7]. The low self-efficacy of nurses in providing palliative care was reported by Foto et al. (2019) [8]. The findings of Iranmanesh et al.'s (2014) indicated the insufficient knowledge of nurses in the southeast region of Iran regarding palliative care [9]. Several studies have shown that a large number of nurses feel anxious and unprepared to communicate with patients and their families when providing palliative and end-of-life care. According to a study conducted in England, only one out of 9 nurses felt satisfied with providing palliative and end-of-life care, which indicates a deficiency in the training programs of nurses both during education and in practice [10].

There is still no consensus on the measurement tools designed for the evaluation of palliative care training programs [5]. To date, various tools have been used to measure palliative care, including the palliative care quiz for nursing (PCQN) and self-efficacy in palliative care scale (SEPC). However, these tools do not comprehensively measure the different dimensions of the training program and palliative care practice. PCQN is used to measure the theoretical knowledge of nursing care. The items of this tool focus on the philosophy and principles of palliative care, symptom management, and psychological and spiritual care of individuals and families. SEPC is used to evaluate confidence when delivering palliative care. This tool includes three separate subscales (perceived self-efficacy in communication, patient symptom management, and multidisciplinary teamwork). Other notable tools include Frommelt Attitudes Toward Care of the Dying Scale Form B (FATCOD-B) that is used to measure the attitude of doctors and nurses regarding end-of-life care and the comfort/discomfort in caring for the dying, and the Revised Collett–Lester Fear of Death Scale (CL-FODS) used to measure fear of death and death anxiety. None of these tools, however, can be used to measure palliative care education and performance [11].

Therefore, the need for a valid and accurate tool to check the quality and effectiveness of palliative care training programs for nurses is hardly disputable. Such a tool should, in addition to measuring theoretical knowledge, tap into emotional and attitude-related aspects. The Program in Palliative Care Education and Practice Questionnaire (German Revised Version; PCEP-GR henceforth) is a valuable tool to measure nurses' knowledge of palliative care in four domains of preparation to provide palliative care, attitudes towards palliative care, self-estimation of competence in communication with dying patients and their relatives, and self-estimation of knowledge and skills in palliative care. This questionnaire was first developed and psychometrically evaluated in Germany [5]. Therefore, the present research was aimed to perform a psychometric analysis of the Persian version of this tool in Iran.

This study follows a psychometric methodological design.

Participants

The research population in this study included nursing students as well as staff nurses working in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and Oncology departments of teaching hospitals affiliated to Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences in Ahvaz, southwest of Iran. The participants were eligible to enter the study if they had at least 6 months of clinical work experience (for nurses in ICU) or were a final year bachelor's student or a student at a higher program in the field of nursing. Exclusion criteria were: unwillingness to continue participation in the research and not completing the questionnaire. The participants were selected from the research population through convenience sampling. According to the rule of thumb, the number of participants in the studies that conduct factor analysis is 10 participant per item [12]. Based on this, a total of 360 nurses and nursing students were invited and studied.

Data Collection

In order to collect data, a demographic and occupational profile questionnaire (age, gender, working or student status, work experience, educational level) as well as PCEP-GR questionnaire, which was designed in form of a 5-point Likert scale (completely disagree to completely agree) were used. Prior to data collection, written informed consent was obtained from the participants who were randomly selected thereafter, and their information was recorded anonymously. Also, permission to use the PCEP-GR tool was obtained from the tool developers.

Translation Process

At first, the translation of the initial English version of the tool was done in a forward-backward manner by two independent translators fluent in English. The translators were selected in such a way that one of them was fully familiar with the concepts and terms of medical sciences, while the other had no knowledge in this field but had a very good command of English. The two independent Persian translations obtained were examined and revised, and after merging them, a single Persian version of the PCEP-GR questionnaire (PPCEP-GR henceforth) was prepared. Finally, the final Persian version was translated into English and sent to the developer of the tool to be compared with the original version of the tool, and it was eventually approved.

Face Validity Of The Ppcep-gr

The face validity of the PPCEP-GR was measured by quantitative and qualitative methods.

In the quantitative validity analysis, 10 people from the target group (staff nurses and nursing students) were asked to express the importance of the instrument's items based on a 5-point Likert scale (from completely understandable to not understandable at all). Then, using the quantitative method of item impact, the scores of each item were calculated according to the following formula.

Impact Score = Frequency (%) × Comprehensiveness

Frequency is the number of people who gave 4 and 5 points to each item, and Comprehensiveness is the average score obtained from the responses of the participants to the above-mentioned Likert scale. A score higher than 1.5 was considered desirable for each item. The qualitative analysis of face validity was on items that had an impact score of less than 1.5, and it involved face-to-face interviews with the target group on item difficulty and relevance, and ambiguity in understanding the items [13].

Content validity

The content validity of the PPCEP-GR tool was assessed by quantitative and qualitative methods.

In the qualitative content validity evaluation phase, PPCEP-GR was given to 10 qualified experts (professors of nursing and experienced professors in end-of-life care). They were requested to evaluate the questionnaire after a qualitative review, and provide the necessary feedback based on criteria such as grammar, using appropriate words, placing items in their proper place, and giving appropriate points [13]. In this step, 11 items were corrected in terms of grammar and their position. Also, at this stage, the number of items rose to 38.

Quantitative content validity assessment was based on the opinion of 10 experts, and it involved two indexes of content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI). In the CVR index, the necessity of an item was checked. The purpose of the content validity ratio is to select the most important and accurate content. For this purpose, the PPCEP-GR was given to 10 experts, and they were asked to examine and score each item based on a 3-point scale (1. Not necessary; 2. Useful but not necessary; 3. Necessary). Then, if the score obtained by the experts was greater than 0.62 according to the Lawshe table (to determine the minimum value of the index), it would indicate that the relevant item should be included in the questionnaire with a statistical significance level P < 0.05 [13].

The following formula was used to calculate CVR:

where nE is the number of experts who have considered the item in question as necessary, and N is the total number of experts.

CVI is calculated to ensure whether the items are designed in the best way to measure the constructs. For this purpose, in the current research, relevance of items was assessed using a 4-point Likert scale for each of the items (from not relevant to completely relevant) by an expert panel of ten members [14]. After the experts were consulted, Waltz & Bausell index was used to calculate CVI according to the following formula:

$$CVI=\frac{Ne}{N}$$

Ne is the number of experts who have chosen option 3 and 4, and N is the total number of experts. If the score of an item is more than 0.79, that item remains in the questionnaire. If the CVI score is between 0.70–0.79, the item is questionable and needs to be revised, and if the score is less than 0.70, the item is unacceptable and should be removed [13].

Construct Validity

In order to check the construct validity of PPCEP-GR, the first step involved extracting the number of latent factors based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA). To check the adequacy of sampling, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett test were performed. A KMO value more than 0.5 is acceptable, and KMO values between 0.7–0.8 and more than 0.9 are considered good and marvelous, respectively. Then extraction of latent factors was done based on the maximum likelihood ratio method, using varimax rotation and scree plot. The presence of an item in the factor was determined to be approximately 0.3 based on the following formula: CV = 5.152÷√(n-2). According to Steven, a valid latent variable is a factor that has at least 10 items with a loading of 0.4 when there are 150 research units. According to the three indicator rule, there should be at least 3 observed variables (items) for each latent variable. Commonalities with a value less than 0.5 were removed from EFA [14].

In the second step, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed based on the most common goodness-of-fit indicators, taking into account the accepted threshold and using maximum likelihood ratio. The assumption of normality was checked based on the skewness index of ± 3 and kurtosis of ± 7. According to Hooper et al. (2008), there is no gold rule for evaluating the fitness model, and it is smart to report several indicators [12]. Following Jaccard et al. (1996) and Meyers et al. (2005), we examined chi-square value (CMIN), Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and chi-square value to degree of freedom (CMIN/DF) [15].

Reliability

In order to evaluate the internal consistency of PPCEP-GR, Cronbach's alpha was calculated in two ways. First, alpha was calculated for all questions based on positively and negatively worded questions, and then it was calculated for each extracted factor. The obtained alpha was over 0.7, which indicated that internal consistency of the tool was acceptable [16]. Although the optimal value of alpha should be at least 0.9 according to some studies [17], some experts believe that an alpha value more than 0.9 is a sign of having too many questions, which should be reduced [18]. Then, by examining the variance ratio of observed variables to latent variables in confirmatory factor analysis, composite reliability and omega coefficient were calculated [19].

Results of demographic data showed that The average age of the participants in the research was 31.19 and its standard deviation was 7.98. most of the participants in the research were women 50.6%, employed 56.4%, and had a bachelor's degree 8.3% (Table 1).

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of participants (n = 360).
Variable		Mean	Standard Deviation
Age		31.19	7.98
		frequency	Percentage
Sex	Male	178	% 49.4
Sex	Female	182	% 50.6
Education	Bachelor	127	% 8.3
	MSC	8	% 6.1
	PhD	22	% 2.2
Employment status	Clinical	203	% 56.4
Employment status	Student	157	% 43.6

Quantitative face validity was evaluated based on item impact method (IIM), and since the calculated impact was higher than 1.5 for each item, face validity was acceptable. The qualitative content validity was also confirmed after the tool was modified by qualified experts, which involved making the necessary grammatical corrections and increasing the number of items to 38. Also, according to the results obtained from the quantitative content validity assessment, three items were removed due to CVR < 0.62 and CVI < 0.70, and according to Lawshe table). Therefore, the number of items at this stage was reduced to 35.

KMO sampling adequacy index was 0.917, and sampling adequacy according to Bartlett's test was P < 0.001. In the exploratory factor analysis, four factors (i.e., knowledge and skills of managing patients' pain and symptoms, management of ethical and psychological issues in patients, communication with patients and their relatives, management of patients' exposure to grief and their attitudes towards death) were extracted. The eigenvalues obtained for these four latent factors were 3.633, 2.732, 3.172 and 1.563, respectively, and the total variance of the four exploratory factors was 43% (Table 2).

Table 2

Factors extracted from PPCEP-GR
Factors	Items	Factor load	Commonalities	Eigenvalue	Variance degree
Factor 1 Knowledge and skill of managing patients' pain and symptoms	Q33: I have sufficient knowledge about the causes of frequent symptoms of patients in need of palliative care.	0.817	0.655	3.633	14.10%
	Q31: I have sufficient knowledge of managing shortness of breath or respiratory distress in terminal illness.	0.801	0.601
	Q32: I have sufficient skills to manage shortness of breath or respiratory distress in terminal illness.	0.785	0.619
	Q34: I have sufficient ability to manage frequent symptoms of patients requiring palliative care.	0.785	0.644
	Q30: I have sufficient pain management skills in terminal illness.	0.679	0.557
	Q35: I have sufficient knowledge about the therapeutic effects and adverse effects of painkillers.	0.661	0.443
Factor 2 Management of ethical and psychological issues in patients	Q5: I am prepared to manage ethical issues arising in the care of patients who are at the end of their life.	0.763	0.533	2.732	10.50%
	Q3: I am ready to manage the emotional suffering of patients at the end of their life.	0.740	0.516
	Q6: I am ready to help family members during mourning.	0.644	0.395
	Q2: I am ready to give bad news to the patient about his illness.	0.519	0.383
	Q12: I am prepared to answer the patient's question "Will I suffer much or be in pain?"	0.518	0.421
	Q9: I am ready to discuss the psychosocial needs and concerns of the patient/family.	0.508	0.289
	Q4: I am ready to discuss with the patient about end-of-life care decisions (such as do-not-resuscitate orders).	0.500	0.300
	Q10: I am ready to deal with cultural differences related to end-of-life care.	0.377	0.430
Factor 3 Communicating with patients and their families	Q25: I discuss death with patients.	0.911	0.717	3.172	12.20%
	Q21: Doctors/nurses have a duty to help patients prepare for death.	0.778	0.597
	Q27: After the death of their patient, I discuss it with the family.	0.669	0.569
	Q28: I answer the patient's question, "How long will I live?"	0.657	0.454
	Q23: I discuss with patients the possible symptoms of an incurable disease.	0.612	0.555
	Q26: I discuss with the family the imminent death of their patient.	0.572	0.505
	Q17: Upon the request of terminally ill patients, any medication necessary to relieve pain should be given, even if the medication will hasten the patient's death.	0.375	0.317
Factor 4 Management of patients' exposure to grief and attitudes towards death	Q15: It is impossible to tell patients the truth about the prognosis of the disease and how much hope is left.	0.740	0.537	1.563	6.20%
	Q19: Depression in patients with incurable diseases cannot be treated.	0.602	0.430
	Q13: Few measures can be taken to reduce sadness.	0.587	0.303
	Q18: Talking about death discourages terminally ill patients.	0.408	0.230
	Q20: The doctor/nurse is responsible only for the patient. The needs of the family should be taken care of by other professionals.	0.378	0.289

In the confirmatory factor analysis, the measured goodness-of-fit indices confirmed the appropriate fit of the final model according to Table 3. According to the final model of the factorial structure of the instrument, the measurement error of Items 1 and 3 (1e and 3e), and Items 12 and 14 (12e and 14e) were correlated (Fig. 1).

Table 3

Fit indices of the model according to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
CMIN/DF	1.908
P	0.000
DF	291
CMIN	555.209
IFI (Delta2)	0.934
TLI (rho2)	0.925
CFI	0.933
PNFI	0.799
PCFI	0.835
RMSEA	0.050

The internal consistency of the questions of the Persian and culturally adapted version of the Program in Palliative Care Education and Practice Questionnaire (German Revised Version; PPCEP-GR) was determined by calculating Cronbach's alpha for each factor of the instrument separately, and the results showed an acceptable correlation (Table 4).

Table 4

Correlation coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) & Composite reliability of the instrument
Domains	Number of items	Cronbach's alpha	Composite reliability	Omega coefficient
Factor 1 Knowledge and skill of managing patients' pain and symptoms	6	0.891	0.903	0.893
Factor 2 Management of ethical and psychological issues in patients	8	0.835	0.798	0.839
Factor 3 Communicating with patients and their families	7	0.879	0.845	0.873
Factor 4 Management of patients’ exposure to grief and attitudes towards death.	5	0.721	0.702	0.700

The psychometric analysis of PPCEP-GR was carried out in three steps. The initial instrument included 36 items in 4 domains (preparation to provide palliative care, attitudes towards palliative care, self-estimation of competence in communication with dying patients and their relatives, and self-estimation of knowledge and skills in palliative care). After conducting content validity and construct validity assessments, the number of items of the PPCEP-GR was 25 items in 4 domains (knowledge and skills of managing patients' pain and symptoms, management of ethical and psychological issues in patients, communication with patients and their relatives, management of patients' exposure to grief and their attitudes towards death). The changes made to the instrument were in accordance to the participants' culture, the way nurses provide palliative care, and the educational curriculum of nursing students in Iran.

In the current research, the first factor is knowledge and skills of managing patients' pain and symptoms. This factor is related to the level of knowledge and skills of nurses and nursing students regarding the management of possible symptoms in patients who need palliative care, which includes pain, side effects of painkillers, shortness of breath, respiratory distress, and other physical symptoms of these patients. In their research, Fetz et al. also considered it necessary to have sufficient competence in controlling common symptoms in patients in need of palliative care, including pain, for providing palliative care. They mentioned it as one of the main dimensions of their tool [5]. Also, in their psychometric analysis of the Spanish version of PCQN, Chover-Sierra et al dedicated 11 out of the 20 items in the questionnaire to methods of controlling the physical symptoms of the patients, including pain and effective drugs. Also, in their tool, 3 basic domains of palliative care were examined, and management of symptoms and pain was one of these 3 domains [20]. Slåtten et al tested and validated the nurses’ core competence in palliative care (NCPC) instrument which is used to measure the competence of nurses in providing palliative care. One of the 5 basic domains of NCPC is the knowledge of symptom management including pain, nausea, anxiety, fatigue and other physical symptoms, which is in line with the present study [21].

The second factor in the current research is the management of ethical and psychological issues in patients who need palliative care. This domain examines the psychological issues as well as the ethical considerations that arise when providing palliative care. Arahata et al. developed a tool to measure the knowledge and attitude of nurses in palliative care. Their tool included 10 domains, and one of these domains directly measures ethical issues and considerations in end-of-life care and palliative care [22]. Nakazawa et al., in their assessment of the Palliative Care Knowledge Test (PCKT), which measures nurses' palliative care knowledge using 20 items in 5 basic domains, mentioned psychological problems and issues as an essential part of nurses' palliative care knowledge [23].

The third factor in the current research was the ability to communicate with patients and their families. In a review study, Soikkeli-Jalonen et al examined the available tools used for measuring the knowledge and skills related to palliative care in intensive nursing care. According to their results, establishing correct and effective communication with patients and their relatives in order to involve both of them in making treatment decisions and providing reliable and dependable information was one of the basic domains of any tool used for measuring knowledge of palliative care in nurses [24]. According to Fetz et al., effective communication with patients and their family is emphasized in the Palliative Care Training and Practice Program of Harvard University. Also, in the development and design of their tool, they proposed 4 basic domains, with competency in communication with dying patients and their relatives being one of the important domains [5].

The fourth factor is the management of patients' exposure to grief and their attitude towards death. Iranmanesh et al. highlighted the need to pay attention to the importance of attitudes towards death in different societies, beliefs and cultures when measuring the level of knowledge of nurses in relation to palliative care [9]. According to Witkamp et al., attitude and perspective of nurses are important components in providing palliative care. In the tool they used to measure the knowledge and perspective of nurses in relation to palliative care, the nurses' attitude towards providing this care was one of the important factors in this type of care [25]. Soikkeli-Jalonen et al. stressed the importance of having the right attitude in making the right care decisions and providing appropriate palliative care for patients in nurses as one of the prominent and important points in most palliative care knowledge measurement tools [24].

Since PCEP has been previously evaluated psychometrically only in Germany, we compared the statistical results of the current study with those of the German version. The KMO value obtained for the German version is 0.81, which is acceptable and consistent with the KMO value we calculated in the present study (0.917). Also, the percentage of total variance of the German version was 40.20%, and that in the present study was 43% which was explained by the four factors. Finally, the Cronbach's alpha coefficients in the 4 domains of the German questionnaire were 0.83, 0.82, 0.75 and 0.66, and those in the present study were 0.89, 0.83, 0.87, and 0.72, which are acceptable and consistent values [5].

In the present study, a valid and reliable tool used for measuring the knowledge of nurses was psychometrically assessed, and an attempt was made to provide sufficient information about the process of evaluating the validity and reliability of this tool. Also, the results of the study showed that the questionnaire has desirable psychometric properties and the necessary rigor and validity to measure the knowledge and performance of palliative care in nursing graduates.

PCEP-GR Program in Palliative Care Education and Practice Questionnaire (German Revised)

PPCEP-GR Persian version of the Program in Palliative Care Education and Practice Questionnaire (German Revised)

CMIN/DF Minimum Discrepancy Function by Degrees of Freedom divided

P (Chi-squared)- p-value

DF Degrees of Freedom

IFI (Delta2) Tucker-Lewis Index

TLI (rho2) Relative Fit Index

CFI Comparative of Fit Index

PNFI Parsimonious Normed Fit Index

PCFI Parsimonious Comparative Fit Index

RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Apprximation

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (Ref. ID: IR.AJUMS.REC.1401.073). Ethical principles were observed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and they were assured that their information would remain confidential.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author [SM] on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. (Grant number: NCRCCD-0102)

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed in the design of the study and contributed with critical revisions and editions of the manuscript. The final manuscript has been read and approved by all authors.

Acknowledgments

This research was extracted from the master's thesis (NCRCCD-0102) of Mohajer Abdoli's, a master's student of nursing at Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (AJUMS). We appreciate all the nurses and nursing students participating in this project, as well as the faculty members of the School of Nursing and Midwifery of AJUMS. This study was funded by AJUMS, Ahvaz, Iran.

WH. O: Palliative Care: World Health Organization; [Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care. 2020.
Getie A, Wondmieneh A, Bimerew M, Gedefaw G, Demis A: Knowledge on Palliative Care and Associated Factors among Nurses in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pain research & management 2021, 2021:5557947.
Murray SA, Kendall M, Mitchell G, Moine S, Amblàs-Novellas J, Boyd K: Palliative care from diagnosis to death. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2017, 356:j878.
Sekse RJT, Hunskår I, Ellingsen S: The nurse's role in palliative care: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Journal of clinical nursing 2018, 27(1-2):e21-e38.
Fetz K, Wenzel-Meyburg U, Schulz-Quach C: Validation of the German revised version of the program in palliative care education and practice questionnaire (PCEP-GR). BMC palliative care 2017, 16(1):78.
Cleary AS: Graduating nurses' knowledge of palliative and end-of-life care. International journal of palliative nursing 2020, 26(1):5-12.
Kim JS, Kim J, Gelegjamts D: Knowledge, attitude and self-efficacy towards palliative care among nurses in Mongolia: A cross-sectional descriptive study. PloS one 2020, 15(7):e0236390.
Fuoto A, Turner KM: Palliative Care Nursing Communication: An Evaluation of the COMFORT Model. Journal of hospice and palliative nursing : JHPN : the official journal of the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association 2019, 21(2):124-130.
Iranmanesh S, Razban F, Tirgari B, Zahra G: Nurses' knowledge about palliative care in Southeast Iran. Palliative & supportive care 2014, 12(3):203-210.
Glover TL, Garvan C, Nealis RM, Citty SW, Derrico DJJAJoH, Medicine® P: Improving end-of-life care knowledge among senior baccalaureate nursing students. 2017, 34(10):938-945.
Frey RA, Gott M, Neil H: Instruments used to measure the effectiveness of palliative care education initiatives at the undergraduate level: a critical literature review. BMJ supportive & palliative care 2013, 3(1):114-119.
Soleimani MA, Dalvand N, Zarabadi Pour S, Alimoradi Z, GÖRGÜLÜ A, Bahrami NJIJoE: Psychometric Properties of Death Depression Scale in Women with Breast Cancer. 2021, 17(1):54-64.
Sharifnia H, Zareiyan A, Ebadi A: Test Development Process in Health Sciences, 3th edn: jph; 2022.
Sharif Nia H, Kaur H, Fomani FK, Rahmatpour P, Kaveh O, Pahlevan Sharif S, Venugopal AV, Hosseini LJFip: Psychometric properties of the impact of events scale-revised (IES-R) among general iranian population during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021:1177.
Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino AJ: Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation: Sage publications; 2016.
Mayers A: Introduction to statistics and SPSS in psychology. 2013.
Nunnally JC: Psychometric theory 3E: Tata McGraw-hill education; 1994.
De Vellis RF: Scale Development: Theory and Applications -Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications 2003, 26.
Hosseini L, Nia HS, Farahani MAJFiP: Development and Psychometric Evaluation of Family Caregivers’ Hardiness Scale: A Sequential-Exploratory Mixed-Method Study. 2022, 13:807049-807049.
Chover-Sierra E, Martínez-Sabater A, Lapeña-Moñux YR: Correction: An instrument to measure nurses' knowledge in palliative care: Validation of the Spanish version of Palliative Care Quiz for Nurses. PloS one 2017, 12(6):e0180622.
Slåtten K, Hatlevik O, Fagerström LJNR, Practice: Validation of a new instrument for self-assessment of nurses’ core competencies in palliative care. 2014, 2014.
Arahata T, Miyashita M, Takenouchi S, Tamura K, Kizawa Y: Development of an Instrument for Evaluating Nurses' Knowledge and Attitude Toward End-of-Life Care: End-of-Life Nursing Education Consortium-Japan Core Quiz. Journal of hospice and palliative nursing : JHPN : the official journal of the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association 2018, 20(1):55-62.
Nakazawa Y, Miyashita M, Morita T, Umeda M, Oyagi Y, Ogasawara T: The palliative care knowledge test: reliability and validity of an instrument to measure palliative care knowledge among health professionals. Palliative medicine 2009, 23(8):754-766.
Soikkeli-jalonen A, Stolt M, Hupli M, Lemetti T: Instrument for assessing nurses palliative care knowledge and skills in specialised care setting: An integrative review. Journal of clinical nursing 2019, 29:736-757.
Witkamp FE, van Zuylen L, van der Rijt CC, van der Heide AJRin, health: Validation of the Rotterdam MOVE2PC questionnaire for assessment of nurses' knowledge and opinions on palliative care. 2013, 36(5):512-523.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 23 Jun, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Palliative Care →

Editorial decision: Major revision
07 Mar, 2023
Reviews received at journal
18 Jan, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
10 Jan, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
04 Jan, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
31 Oct, 2022
Editor invited by journal
31 Oct, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
31 Oct, 2022
First submitted to journal
29 Oct, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Psychometrics of the Persian version of Program in Palliative Care Education and Practice Questionnaire (German Revised - PPCEP-GR)

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Figures

Introduction

Method

Participants

Data Collection

Translation Process

Face Validity Of The Ppcep-gr

Content validity

Construct Validity

Reliability

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1