A pilot randomised controlled trial of a holistic needs assessment questionnaire in a supportive and palliative care service

AHMED, Nisar, HUGHES, P, WINSLOW, M, BATH, P, COLLINS, Karen and NOBLE, B (2015). A pilot randomised controlled trial of a holistic needs assessment questionnaire in a supportive and palliative care service. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 50 (5), 587-598. [Article]

Documents
10089:33852
[thumbnail of collins - A pilot radomized controlled trial of holistic needs assessment.pdf]
Preview
PDF
collins - A pilot radomized controlled trial of holistic needs assessment.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (331kB) | Preview
Abstract
Context : At present, there is no widely used systematic evidence-based holistic approach to assessment of patients' supportive and palliative care needs. Objectives : To determine whether the use of a holistic needs assessment questionnaire, Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care (SPARC), will lead to improved health care outcomes for patients referred to a palliative care service. Methods : This was an open, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. Patients (n = 182) referred to the palliative care service were randomized to receive SPARC at baseline (n = 87) or after a period of two weeks (waiting-list control n = 95). Primary outcome measure is the difference in score between Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCAW) patient-nominated Concern 1 on the patient self-scoring visual analogue scale at baseline and the two-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes include difference in scores in the MYCAW, EuroQoL (EQ-5D), and Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) scores at Weeks 2, 4, and 6. Results : There was a significant association between change in MYCAW score and whether the patients were in the intervention or control group (χ2trend = 5.51; degrees of freedom = 1; P = 0.019). A higher proportion of patients in the control group had an improvement in MYCAW score from baseline to Week 2: control (34 of 70 [48.6%]) vs. intervention (19 of 66 [28.8%]). There were no significant differences (no detectable effect) between the control and intervention groups in the scores for EQ-5D and Patient Enablement Instrument at 2-, 4-, or 6-week follow-up. Conclusion : This trial result identifies a potential negative effect of SPARC in specialist palliative care services, raising questions that standardized holistic needs assessment questionnaires may be counterproductive if not integrated with a clinical assessment that informs the care plan. Key Words : Palliative care; holistic needs assessment questionnaire; SPARC; MYCAW; EQ-5D; PEI
More Information
Statistics

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

Metrics

Altmetric Badge

Dimensions Badge

Share
Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item