Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-nqqt6 Total loading time: 0.304 Render date: 2022-07-05T13:37:32.318Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS-J)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2005

MITSUNORI MIYASHITA
Affiliation:
Department of Adult Nursing/Terminal and Long-term Care Nursing, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan
KAZUKO MATOBA
Affiliation:
Office of Palliative Care, Kameda Medical Center, Kamogawa, Chiba, Japan
TOMOYO SASAHARA
Affiliation:
Department of Adult Nursing/Terminal and Long-term Care Nursing, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan
YOSHIYUKI KIZAWA
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
MISAE MARUGUCHI
Affiliation:
National College of Nursing, Kiyose, Tokyo, Japan
MAYUMI ABE
Affiliation:
Palliative Care Promotion Office, Hirosima Palliative Care Promotion Center, Hiroshima, Japan
MASAKO KAWA
Affiliation:
Department of Adult Nursing/Terminal and Long-term Care Nursing, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan
YASUO SHIMA
Affiliation:
Department of Palliative Medicine, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this project was to develop an appropriate and valid instrument for assessment by medical professionals in Japanese palliative care settings.

Methods: We developed a Japanese version of the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS-J), using a back translation method, and tested its reliability and validity. In the reliability study, 16 nurses and a physician who work in a palliative care unit evaluated 10 hypothetical cases twice at 3-month intervals. For the validity study, external researchers interviewed 50 patients with matignancy and their families and compared the results with ratings by the nurses in the palliative care unit.

Results: Our results with hypothetical cases were: interrater reliability weighted κ = 0.53–0.77 and intrarater reliability weighted κ = 0.64–0.85. In the validity study comparing nurse evaluations and the results of interviews with patients and families, complete agreement was 36–70%, and close agreement (±1) was 74–100%. As a whole, weighted κ were low: between −0.07 and 0.51. Our results were similar to those in the United Kingdom and Canada.

Significance of results: Although this research was conducted under methodologically limited conditions, we concluded that the STAS-J is a reliable tool and its validity is acceptable. The STAS-J should become a valuable tool, not only for daily clinical use, but also for research.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bruera, E. (1996). Quality assurance in palliative care—A growing “must?” [Letter]. Support Care Cancer, 4, 157.Google Scholar
Bruera, E., Kuehn, N., Miller, M., et al. (1991). The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): A simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. Journal of Palliative Care, 7, 69.Google Scholar
Bruera, E., Macmillan, K., Hanson, J., et al. (1989). The Edmonton staging system for cancer pain: Preliminary report. Pain, 37, 203209.Google Scholar
Carson, M.G., Fitch, M.I., & Vachon, M.L. (2000). Measuring patient outcomes in palliative care: A reliability and validity study of the support team assessment schedule. Palliative Medicine, 14, 2536.Google Scholar
Edmonds, P.M., Stuttaford, J.M., Penny, J., et al. (1998). Do hospital palliative care teams improve symptom control? Use of a modified STAS as an evaluation tool. Palliative Medicine, 12, 345351.Google Scholar
Feinstein, A.R. & Cicchetti, D.V. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 543549.Google Scholar
Hearn, J. & Higginson, I. (1997). Outcome measures in palliative care for advanced cancer patients: A review. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 19, 193199.Google Scholar
Higginson, I. (1993). Clinical Audit in Palliative Care. New York: Radcliffe Medical Press.
Higginson, I. (1994). Clinical audit and organizational audit in palliative care. Cancer Surveys, 21, 233245.Google Scholar
Higginson, I. & McCarthy, M. (1989). Evaluation of palliative care. Palliative Medicine, 3, 267274.Google Scholar
Higginson, I. & McCarthy, M. (1993). Validity of the support team assessment schedule: Do staffs' rating reflect those made by patients or their families? Palliative Medicine, 7, 219228.Google Scholar
Higginson, I. & McCarthy, M.A. (1994). A comparison of two measures of quality of life: Their sensitivity and validity for patients with advanced cancer. Palliative Medicine, 8, 282290.Google Scholar
Higginson, I., Wade, A., & McCarthy, M. (1998). A comparison of four outcome measures of terminal care. In A safer death, A. Gilmore, S. Gilmore (eds.), pp. 205211. New York: Plenum Press.
Ingleton, C. & Faulkner, A. (1995). Quality assurance in palliative care—A review of the literature. Journal of Cancer Care, 4, 4955.Google Scholar
Kawa, M., Miyashita, M., & Imamura, Y. (1999). A preliminary research on introducing a clinical audit in hospice and palliative care units in Japan. [Hosupisu kea ni kansuru kenkyuu houkoku syo.] pp. 4449. Tokyo, Japan Sasagawa Health Science Foundation (in Japanese).
Kobayashi, K., Takeda, F., Teramukai, S., et al. (1998). A cross-validation of the European Organization of Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30) for Japanese with lung cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 34, 810815.Google Scholar
Landis, J.R. & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159174.Google Scholar
Lo, R.S., Ding, A., Chung, T.K., et al. (1999). Prospective study of symptom control in 133 cases of palliative care. Palliative Medicine, 13, 335340.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. & Higginson, I. (1991). Clinical audit by a palliative care team. Palliative Medicine, 5, 215221.Google Scholar
Morita, T., Chihara, S., & Kashiwagi, T. (2002a). Quality Audit Committee of the Japanese Association of Hospice and Palliative Care Units. A scale to measure satisfaction of bereaved family receiving inpatient palliative care. Palliative Medicine, 16, 141150.Google Scholar
Morita, T., Chihara, S., & Kashiwagi, T. (2002b). Quality Audit Committee of the Japanese Association of Hospice and Palliative Care Units. Family satisfaction with inpatient palliative care in Japan. Palliative Medicine, 16, 185193.Google Scholar
Okuyama, T., Wang, X.T., Akechi, T., et al. (2003). Japanese version of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory: A validation study. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 26, 10931103.Google Scholar
Sakonji, M., Shimizu, C., Shingo, Y., et al. (1997). Hospice care in Japan. In Hospice Care on the International Scene, C.D. Saunders, R. Kastenbaum (eds.), pp. 219231. New York: Springer.
Tamura, K. (2001). Current status and problem about quality of palliative care in Japan. The Japanese Journal of Nursing and Hospice Care, 12, 4352 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Uchinuno, A. (2001). Concept and implementation of quality improvement to terminal care. The Japanese Journal of Terminal Care, 11, 341347 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
World Health Organization. (1990). Cancer pain relief and palliative care. Technical Report Series 804. Geneva: World Health Organization.
64
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS-J)
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS-J)
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS-J)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *