King's College London

Research portal

Population-Based Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Population-Based Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Cancer Care : A Systematic Review. / Henson, Lesley Anne; Edmonds, Polly; Johnston, Anna; Johnson, Halle Elizabeth; Ng Yin Ling, Clarissa; Sklavounos, Alexandros; Ellis-Smith, Clare; Gao, Wei.

In: JAMA oncology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388, 01.01.2020, p. 142-150.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Henson, LA, Edmonds, P, Johnston, A, Johnson, HE, Ng Yin Ling, C, Sklavounos, A, Ellis-Smith, C & Gao, W 2020, 'Population-Based Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Cancer Care: A Systematic Review', JAMA oncology, vol. 6, no. 1, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388, pp. 142-150. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388

APA

Henson, L. A., Edmonds, P., Johnston, A., Johnson, H. E., Ng Yin Ling, C., Sklavounos, A., Ellis-Smith, C., & Gao, W. (2020). Population-Based Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Cancer Care: A Systematic Review. JAMA oncology, 6(1), 142-150. [10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388]. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388

Vancouver

Henson LA, Edmonds P, Johnston A, Johnson HE, Ng Yin Ling C, Sklavounos A et al. Population-Based Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Cancer Care: A Systematic Review. JAMA oncology. 2020 Jan 1;6(1):142-150. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388

Author

Henson, Lesley Anne ; Edmonds, Polly ; Johnston, Anna ; Johnson, Halle Elizabeth ; Ng Yin Ling, Clarissa ; Sklavounos, Alexandros ; Ellis-Smith, Clare ; Gao, Wei. / Population-Based Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Cancer Care : A Systematic Review. In: JAMA oncology. 2020 ; Vol. 6, No. 1. pp. 142-150.

Bibtex Download

@article{43cc1789e0314c26ab8075bf25bd3697,
title = "Population-Based Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Cancer Care: A Systematic Review",
abstract = "Importance: Improving the quality of cancer care is an international priority. Population-based quality indicators (QIs) are key to this process yet remain almost exclusively used for evaluating care during the early, often curative, stages of disease.Objectives: To identify all existing QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life and to evaluate each indicator's measurement properties and appropriateness for use.Evidence Review: For this systematic review, 5 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception through February 4, 2019, for studies describing the development, review, and/or testing of QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life. For each QI identified, descriptive information was extracted and 6 measurement properties (acceptability, evidence base, definition, feasibility, reliability, and validity) were assessed using previously established criteria, with 4 possible ratings: positive, intermediate, negative, and unknown. Ratings were collated and each QI classified as appropriate for use, inappropriate for use, or of limited testing. Among the QIs determined as appropriate for use, a recommended shortlist was generated by excluding those that were specific to patient subgroups and/or care settings; related QIs were identified, and the indicator with the highest rating was retained.Findings: The search yielded 7231 references, 35 of which (from 28 individual studies) met the eligibility criteria. Of 288 QIs extracted (260 unique), 103 (35.8%) evaluated physical aspects of care and 109 (37.8%) evaluated processes of care. Quality indicators relevant to psychosocial (18 [6.3%]) or spiritual and cultural (3 [1.0%]) care domains were limited. Eighty QIs (27.8%) were determined to be appropriate for use, 116 (40.3%) inappropriate for use, and 92 (31.9%) of limited testing. The measurement properties with the fewest positive assessments were acceptability (38 [13.2%]) and validity (63 [21.9%]). Benchmarking data were reported for only 16 QIs (5.6%). The final 15 recommended QIs came from 6 studies.Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that only a small proportion of QIs developed for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life have received adequate testing and/or are appropriate for use. Further testing may be needed, as is research to establish benchmarking data and to expand QIs relevant to psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual care domains.",
author = "Henson, {Lesley Anne} and Polly Edmonds and Anna Johnston and Johnson, {Halle Elizabeth} and {Ng Yin Ling}, Clarissa and Alexandros Sklavounos and Clare Ellis-Smith and Wei Gao",
year = "2020",
month = jan,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "142--150",
journal = "JAMA oncology",
issn = "2374-2437",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "1",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Population-Based Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Cancer Care

T2 - A Systematic Review

AU - Henson, Lesley Anne

AU - Edmonds, Polly

AU - Johnston, Anna

AU - Johnson, Halle Elizabeth

AU - Ng Yin Ling, Clarissa

AU - Sklavounos, Alexandros

AU - Ellis-Smith, Clare

AU - Gao, Wei

PY - 2020/1/1

Y1 - 2020/1/1

N2 - Importance: Improving the quality of cancer care is an international priority. Population-based quality indicators (QIs) are key to this process yet remain almost exclusively used for evaluating care during the early, often curative, stages of disease.Objectives: To identify all existing QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life and to evaluate each indicator's measurement properties and appropriateness for use.Evidence Review: For this systematic review, 5 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception through February 4, 2019, for studies describing the development, review, and/or testing of QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life. For each QI identified, descriptive information was extracted and 6 measurement properties (acceptability, evidence base, definition, feasibility, reliability, and validity) were assessed using previously established criteria, with 4 possible ratings: positive, intermediate, negative, and unknown. Ratings were collated and each QI classified as appropriate for use, inappropriate for use, or of limited testing. Among the QIs determined as appropriate for use, a recommended shortlist was generated by excluding those that were specific to patient subgroups and/or care settings; related QIs were identified, and the indicator with the highest rating was retained.Findings: The search yielded 7231 references, 35 of which (from 28 individual studies) met the eligibility criteria. Of 288 QIs extracted (260 unique), 103 (35.8%) evaluated physical aspects of care and 109 (37.8%) evaluated processes of care. Quality indicators relevant to psychosocial (18 [6.3%]) or spiritual and cultural (3 [1.0%]) care domains were limited. Eighty QIs (27.8%) were determined to be appropriate for use, 116 (40.3%) inappropriate for use, and 92 (31.9%) of limited testing. The measurement properties with the fewest positive assessments were acceptability (38 [13.2%]) and validity (63 [21.9%]). Benchmarking data were reported for only 16 QIs (5.6%). The final 15 recommended QIs came from 6 studies.Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that only a small proportion of QIs developed for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life have received adequate testing and/or are appropriate for use. Further testing may be needed, as is research to establish benchmarking data and to expand QIs relevant to psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual care domains.

AB - Importance: Improving the quality of cancer care is an international priority. Population-based quality indicators (QIs) are key to this process yet remain almost exclusively used for evaluating care during the early, often curative, stages of disease.Objectives: To identify all existing QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life and to evaluate each indicator's measurement properties and appropriateness for use.Evidence Review: For this systematic review, 5 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception through February 4, 2019, for studies describing the development, review, and/or testing of QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life. For each QI identified, descriptive information was extracted and 6 measurement properties (acceptability, evidence base, definition, feasibility, reliability, and validity) were assessed using previously established criteria, with 4 possible ratings: positive, intermediate, negative, and unknown. Ratings were collated and each QI classified as appropriate for use, inappropriate for use, or of limited testing. Among the QIs determined as appropriate for use, a recommended shortlist was generated by excluding those that were specific to patient subgroups and/or care settings; related QIs were identified, and the indicator with the highest rating was retained.Findings: The search yielded 7231 references, 35 of which (from 28 individual studies) met the eligibility criteria. Of 288 QIs extracted (260 unique), 103 (35.8%) evaluated physical aspects of care and 109 (37.8%) evaluated processes of care. Quality indicators relevant to psychosocial (18 [6.3%]) or spiritual and cultural (3 [1.0%]) care domains were limited. Eighty QIs (27.8%) were determined to be appropriate for use, 116 (40.3%) inappropriate for use, and 92 (31.9%) of limited testing. The measurement properties with the fewest positive assessments were acceptability (38 [13.2%]) and validity (63 [21.9%]). Benchmarking data were reported for only 16 QIs (5.6%). The final 15 recommended QIs came from 6 studies.Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that only a small proportion of QIs developed for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life have received adequate testing and/or are appropriate for use. Further testing may be needed, as is research to establish benchmarking data and to expand QIs relevant to psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual care domains.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074195479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388

DO - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388

M3 - Article

C2 - 31647512

VL - 6

SP - 142

EP - 150

JO - JAMA oncology

JF - JAMA oncology

SN - 2374-2437

IS - 1

M1 - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3388

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454