MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002502873 · doi:10.1177/0269216310373168

The development and validation of a novel questionnaire to measure patient and family satisfaction with end-of-life care: the Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project (CANHELP) Questionnaire

2010· article· en· W2002502873 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daren K. Heyland, Graeme Rocker, Peter Dodek, Demetrios J. Kutsogiannis, Yoanna Skrobik, Xuran Jiang, Andrew G. Day, S. Robin Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalSt. Paul's HospitalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of AlbertaQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityKingston General HospitalClinical Evaluation Research Unit
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsMcGill UniversityHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCronbach's alphaMedicineConstruct validityQuality of life (healthcare)Family medicineQuestionnairePatient satisfactionClinical psychologyNursingPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to further validate a novel instrument to measure satisfaction with end-of-life care, called the Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project (CANHELP) questionnaire. Data were collected by a cross-sectional survey of patients who had advanced, life-limiting illnesses and their family caregivers, and who completed CANHELP, a global rating of satisfaction, and a quality of life questionnaire. We conducted factor analysis, assessed internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha, and evaluated construct validity by describing the correlation amongst CANHELP, global rating of satisfaction and the quality of life questionnaire scores. There were 361 patient and 193 family questionnaires available for analysis. In the factor analysis, we identified six easily interpretable factors which explained 55.4% and 60.2% of the variance for the patient and caregiver questionnaire, respectively. For the patient version, the subscales derived from these factors were Relationship with Doctors, Illness Management, Communication, Decision-Making, Role of the Family, and Your Well-being. For the family questionnaire, the factors were Relationship with Doctors, Characteristics of Doctors and Nurses, Illness Management, Communication and Decision-Making, Your Involvement, and Your Well-being. Each subscale for each questionnaire had acceptable to excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.69-0.94). We observed good correlations between the CANHELP overall satisfaction score and global rating of satisfaction (correlation coefficient 0.49 and 0.63 for patient and family, respectively) which was greater than the correlations between CANHELP and the quality of life instruments. We conclude that the CANHELP Questionnaire is a valid and internally consistent instrument to measure satisfaction with end-of-life care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations77
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative MedicineSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207