The use of two common palliative outcome measures in clinical care and research: A systematic review of POS and STAS

Abstract

The Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) and the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS) are outcome measures assessing quality of care in palliative care patients. This review aims to appraise their use in clinical care and research. Five electronic databases were searched (February 2010) for original papers describing the validation or use of POS and/or STAS. Of the 83 papers included, 43 studies were on POS, 39 on STAS and one study using both. Eight STAS studies validated the original version, four an adaptation; 20 studies applied the STAS in another culture and 19 in other languages. POS papers reported included: 14 adapted POS versions, 12 translations of the POS and 15 studies of use in different cultures. Both measures have been used in cancer, HIV/AIDS and in mixed groups. POS has also been applied in neurological, kidney, pulmonary and heart disease. Both tools were used in different areas such as the evaluation of care or interventions, description of symptom prevalence and implementation of outcome measures in clinical practice. Overall, they seem to be well accepted tools for outcome measurement in palliative care, both in clinical care and research.

Development and validation of the Comprehensive Quality of Life Outcome (CoQoLo) inventory for patients with advanced cancer

“…In Canada, Cohen et al 5 developed the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL) with an existential domain; however, the MQOL is simply an expanded version of traditional QOL questionnaires. The Palliative Outcome Scale (POS), which was developed in the UK, is also used worldwide 6 7. Although the POS covers many dimensions of QOL for palliative care patients, the symptom control, anxiety, quality of care and existence items are not sufficiently informative.…”

Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses- A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Publications in Palliative Care Journals

“…Topical focuses were place of death, 25 79,87 and one addressing both practice and research. 71 Among the 33 assessment reviews, 26 reviews were focused generally on all disease conditions and 7 reviews were on cancer. The topics reviewed in assessment studies were outcome measurement, 21 50 and patients' experiences.…”

Palliativmedizin: Ein Modell für Comparative Effectiveness Research?

“…Noch weitergehender ist die Kritik von Joly et al [46], welche herausarbeiteten, dass in in der Regel weder nachvollziehbar argumentiert wird, wann PRO als primärer und wann als sekundäre Endpunkt gewählt wurden, und dass nur selten hypothesengeleitete A Priori Festlegung für ,,palliative response'' zu finden ist. Dringend zu klärend ist nach einer Analyse von Studien zur Behandlung von Patienten mit fortgeschrittenem Dickdarmkrebs [47] [52]. CER steht alles in allem vor der Herausforderung, auf einer expliziten Begrün-dungen für die Verwendung valider wie angemessener PRO als primärem oder sekundärem Outcome zu bestehen.…”