On the whole, the treatment appears effective and feasible. Apart from the benefits achieved by the participants, the study provides a basis for designing future studies at a higher level of evidence.

ObjectiveIn Germany, children with life-limiting conditions and complex symptoms are eligible for specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In the federal state of Hesse, SOPC for children (SOPPC) is delivered by teams with paediatric expertise. While burdened by the life-limiting condition of their child, parents must also fulfill their roles as main care providers and decision makers. Collaboration between parents and SOPPC teams is important, as the intermittent care and uncertainty it entails often lasts for several months or years. We explored parents’ experiences and their demands of collaboration with SOPPC teams.MethodsWe conducted nine narrative interviews with 13 parents of children and adolescents with life-limiting conditions and used a grounded theory approach to analyse interview data.ResultsParents stressed the importance of paediatric expertise, honesty, psychosocial support, an individualised approach, experience of self-efficacy and the need to be recognised as experts for their children. The narrative interviews showed that collaboration between parents and SOPPC teams was characterised by parents’ need for specialised professional assistance and their simultaneous empowerment by SOPPC teams.ConclusionsParents’ perceptions of what good collaboration with SOPPC teams entails are manifold. To meet these complex needs, SOPPC requires time and specialised expertise.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) is a screening tool designed to detect symptoms related to Central Sensitization (CS) and Central Sensitivity Syndromes (CSS) by measuring the degree of related phenomena. The objective of this study was to create a German, culturally-adapted version of the CSI and to test its psychometric properties. Methods A German version of the CSI (CSI-GE) was developed, culturally-adapted, and pretested for comprehensibility. The psychometric properties of the resulting version were validated in a clinical study with chronic pain and pain-free control subjects. To assess retest reliability, the CSI-GE was administered twice to a subgroup of patients. Structural validity was tested using factor analyses. To investigate construct validity a hypotheses testing approach was used, including (1) correlations between the CSI-GE and several other well-established questionnaires as well as (2) an investigation of the CSI-GE discriminative power between different subgroups of participants believed to have different degrees of CS. Results The CSI-GE showed excellent reliability, including high test-retest characteristics. Factor analyses confirmed a bi-factor dimensionality as has been determined previously. Analysing construct validity 6 out of 11 hypotheses (55%) were met. CSI-GE scores differentiated between subgroups according to expectations. Correlations between CSI-GE scores and other questionnaires suggested that none of the correlated constructs was identical, but there was overlap with other questionnaires based on symptom load. Several correlations did not fit with our current understanding of CS. Conclusion The CSI-GE appears to be a reliable tool for measuring CS/CSS-related symptomatology. Whether this implies that the CSI-GE measures the degree of CS within an individual subject remains unknown. The resulting score should be interpreted cautiously until further clarification of the construct.