Cultural adaptation and validation of the Quality of Dying in Long‐term Care (<scp>QoD‐LTC</scp> and <scp>QoD‐LTC‐C</scp>) scales by caregivers in nursing homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of tools that can evaluate quality of dying in nursing homes from the perspective of deceased patients' caregivers. The aim of this study was to adapt and validate the caregivers' versions of the Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care (QoD-LTC) and Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care Complete (QoD-LTC-C) scales in the Spanish context. METHODS: This was a cultural adaptation and validation study. The scales were translated from English to Spanish and vice versa, and 13 experts in end-of-life care participated in a two-round Delphi panel. Caregivers of 69 deceased residents from seven nursing homes in southern Spain completed both scales. Reliability, feasibility, and concurrent validity with global quality of dying perception and symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale), were evaluated. RESULTS: Spanish caregivers' version of the QoD-LTC scale showed good internal consistency for the total scale (α = 0.74) and each of its three factors, and good inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.50) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.81). The Spanish QoD-LTC-C scale for caregivers showed good internal consistency for the total scale (α = 0.81) and for its component factors, and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.89) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.66). Both scales correlated with family caregivers' global perception of deceased residents' quality of dying (r = 0.39; r = 0.32), but not with the ESAS score. CONCLUSIONS: Both scales presented an adequate factorial structure, internal consistency, and reliability to assess caregivers' perception of the quality of dying in Spanish nursing homes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".