Concordância entre as medidas da versão brasileira da Palliative Care Outcome scale (POS) nas versões paciente e cuidador

Abstract

Introduction: According to the World Health Organization, palliative care is recommended for people diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. Therefore, as the number of people with chronic noncommunicable diseases, such as cancer, increases, so does the need for healthcare professionals to provide palliative care. Understanding the palliative care needs of these individuals is essential for providing quality healthcare. Assessing these needs using valid and accurate tools is fundamental for both diagnosis and evaluation of the care provided. The use of these measurement tools to assess the perceptions of these individuals and their caregivers is necessary for both clinical care and research. As the health condition of cancer patients worsens, it is not always possible to obtain an assessment of palliative care needs directly from the patients themselves. An assessment obtained through their caregiver may be the only viable alternative. Aim: Analyze the agreement between the scores obtained from the Brazilian versions of the Palliative Care Outcome Scale (self-report and caregiver versions), administered respectively to people diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers. Method: A cross-sectional methodological study. Data collection took place in the inpatient units of the Oncology Department at a regional referral hospital specializing in cancer treatment. The study population consisted of individuals with any cancer diagnosis and their informal caregivers who were undergoing treatment at the study site, regardless of disease stage. The sample consisted of 206 participants, including 103 people with cancer and 103 of their respective informal caregivers. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected through individual interviews and review of patients’ electronic medical records. Patients and caregivers were interviewed and individually completed the POS-self and POS-carer versions, respectively. For the analysis of the collected data, descriptive statistics were used, including measures of central tendency, frequency, and percentage, along with inferential statistics via the paired t-test to compare measures between the two groups. The level of significance adopted was less than 0.05. The research project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee, see opinion number 7.401.113 and CAAE: 85736325.4.0000.5564. Results: There was an equivalent average score on the variables presented by the POS among participants with cancer and their respective informal caregivers, with statistical evidence (p = 0.003) of a difference in the assessment of anxiety related to treatment or the disease. In this regard, agreement in the assessment of palliative care needs between the pair is predominant, with a divergence regarding anxiety, a psychological variable of the instrument. Conclusion: People with cancer and their respective informal caregivers show agreement in the POS measures, with the exception of the assessment of psychological aspects, where there may be an overestimation in the informal caregiver’s assessment.