Advertisement

Authors’ Reply to Montoya et al. Comment On: “Tools Measuring Quality of Death, Dying, and Care, Completed After Death: Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties”

  • Nuriye Kupeli
  • Bridget Candy
  • Gabrielle Tamura-Rose
  • Guy Schofield
  • Natalie Webber
  • Stephanie E. Hicks
  • Theodore Floyd
  • Bella Vivat
  • Elizabeth L. Sampson
  • Patrick Stone
  • Trefor Aspden
Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

We thank Montoya and colleagues [1] for taking the time to read our paper “Tools measuring quality of death, dying, and care, completed after death: Systematic review of psychometric properties” [2] and drawing our attention to their related study. We acknowledge that the short version of the Good Death Inventory may have some positive psychometric properties. Our review identified one paper by Miyashita and colleagues [3] entitled “Good death inventory: a measure for evaluating good death from the bereaved family member’s perspective”, which explored the psychometric properties of the short version of the Good Death Inventory in the population of interest. This paper reported good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.85) and reliability (intraclass correlation 0.71); however, this study used data collected to assess the psychometric properties of the long version of the Good Death Inventory to develop and assess the properties of the short version. We hope this clarifies our findings and recommendations for more research evaluating the psychometric properties of these tools.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

The improving care, assessment, communication and training at the end-of-life (I-CAN-CARE) programme is funded by Marie Curie Cancer Care (Grant reference: MCCC-FPO-16-U).

Conflict of interest

Nuriye Kupeli, Bridget Candy, Gabrielle Tamura-Rose, Guy Schofield, Natalie Webber, Stephanie E. Hicks, Theodore Floyd, Bella Vivat, Elizabeth L. Sampson, Patrick Stone and Trefor Aspden have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this letter.

References

  1. 1.
    Montoya-Medina JE, Jabbour GP, Urrunaga N, Jiménez HA. Comment on: Tools Measuring Quality of Death, Dying, and Care, Completed After Death: Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties. Patient. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0350-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kupeli N, Candy B, Tamura-Rose G, et al. Tools measuring quality of death, dying, and care, completed after death: systematic review of psychometric properties. Patient. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0328-2 (epub ahead of print).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miyashita M, Morita T, Sato K, et al. Good death inventory: a measure for evaluating good death from the bereaved family member’s perspective. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2008;35(5):486–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nuriye Kupeli
    • 1
  • Bridget Candy
    • 1
  • Gabrielle Tamura-Rose
    • 2
  • Guy Schofield
    • 3
  • Natalie Webber
    • 4
  • Stephanie E. Hicks
    • 5
  • Theodore Floyd
    • 6
  • Bella Vivat
    • 1
  • Elizabeth L. Sampson
    • 1
    • 7
  • Patrick Stone
    • 1
  • Trefor Aspden
    • 8
  1. 1.Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of PsychiatryUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Palliative CareRoyal Free HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.Centre for Ethics in MedicineUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  4. 4.Royal Trinity HospiceLondonUK
  5. 5.St Christopher’s HospiceLondonUK
  6. 6.Emergency DepartmentMedway Maritime Hospital NHS TrustKentUK
  7. 7.Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust Liaison Psychiatry TeamNorth Middlesex University HospitalLondonUK
  8. 8.Division of PsychiatryUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations