Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review of instruments measuring the quality of dying and death in Asian countries

  • Review
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to systematically identify, appraise, and summarize the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure the quality of dying and death in Asian countries.

Methods

The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) was closely followed. The literature was searched using the following keywords and their synonyms: “death and dying,” “measurement,” and “Asian country” in CINAHL, PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to April 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed the full text. Two other reviewers independently assessed the quality of the identified studies in three steps: methodological quality evaluation, good measurement properties evaluation, and quality of evidence evaluation.

Results

This review retrieved 37,195 studies, of which seven were finally included. Four instruments that assessed the quality of dying and death in Asian countries were identified: the Good Death Inventory (GDI), the Good Death Scale (GDS), and two versions of the Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) Questionnaires. All included studies failed to evaluate all the recommended psychometric properties, and none of the instruments provided strong evidence of their quality among Asian populations. Overall, the grade of evidence quality for the GDI was moderate, the highest among all identified instruments.

Conclusion

The GDI is by far the most reliable instrument for assessing the quality of dying and death in Asian populations. A lack of validation studies in Asian and Western cultures, however, warrants caution when drawing conclusions from the GDI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Singer, P. A., & Bowman, K. W. (2002). Quality end-of-life care: A global perspective. BMC Palliative care, 1(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bear, L., Simpson, N., Angland, M., Bhogal, J. K., Bowers, R., Cannell, F., Gardner, K., Lohiya, A. G., James, D., Jivraj, N., Koch, I., Laws, M., Lipton, Lipton, J., Long, N. J., Vieira, J., Watt, C., Whittle, C., & Zidaru-Barbulescu, T. (2020). ‘A good death’ during the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK: a report on key findings and recommendations. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/104143

  3. Becqué, Y. N., van der Geugten, W., Van der Heide, A., Korfage, I. J., Pasman, H. R. W., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Zee, M., Witkamp, E., & Goossensen, A. (2022). Dignity reflections based on experiences of end-of-life care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative inquiry among bereaved relatives in the Netherlands (the CO-LIVE study). Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 36(3), 769–781.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carr, D. (2003). A “good death” for whom? Quality of spouse’s death and psychological distress among older widowed persons. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(2), 215–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ellershaw, J., Dewar, S., & Murphy, D. (2010). Achieving a good death for all. BMJ, 341, c4861.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang, S. S., Teo, W. Z., Yee, C. W., & Chai, Y. W. (2020). Pursuing a good death in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 23(6), 754–755.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lois Downey, J., Curtis, R., Lafferty, W. E., Herting, J. R., & Ruth, A. (2010). Engelberg, The Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire (QODD): Empirical domains and theoretical perspectives. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 39(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.05.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stewart, A. L., Teno, J., Patrick, D. L., & Lynn, J. (1999). The concept of quality of life of dying persons in the context of health care. Journal of pain and symptom management, 17(2), 93–108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hales, S., Zimmermann, C., & Rodin, G. (2008). The quality of dying and death. Archives of internal medicine, 168(9), 912–918.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Huang, Q. S. (2015). A review on problems of China’s hospice care and analysis of possible solutions. Chinese medical journal, 128(02), 279–281.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Miyashita, M., Sanjo, M., Morita, T., Hirai, K., & Uchitomi, Y. (2007). Good death in cancer care: A nationwide quantitative study. Annals of Oncology, 18(6), 1090–1097.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gutierrez Sanchez, D., Perez Cruzado, D., & Cuesta-Vargas, A. I. (2018). The quality of dying and death measurement instruments: A systematic psychometric review. Journal of advanced nursing, 74(8), 1803–1818. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & De Vet, H. C. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC medical research methodology, 10(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., de Vel, H. C. W., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Mokkink, L. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs. User Manual Version 1. Retrieved November, 2022, from https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-methodology-for-content-validity-usermanual-v1.pdf

  16. Cheng, S. Y., Hu, W. Y., Liu, W. J., Yao, C. A., Chen, C. Y., & Chiu, T. Y. (2008). Good death study of elderly patients with terminal cancer in Taiwan. Palliative medicine, 22(5), 626–632.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cho, J. Y., Lee, J., Lee, S. M., Park, J. H., Kim, J., Kim, Y., Lee, S. H., Park, J. S., Cho, Y. J., Yoon, H. I., & Lee, J. H. (2018). Transcultural adaptation and validation of quality of dying and death questionnaire in medical intensive care units in South Korea. Acute and critical care, 33(2), 95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Han, X. P., Mei, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, T. T., Yin, A. N., Qiu, F., & Liu, M. J. (2021). Validation of the Chinese version of the quality of dying and death questionnaire for family members of ICU patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 62(3), 599–608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Miyashita, M., Morita, T., Sato, K., Hirai, K., Shima, Y., & Uchitomi, Y. (2008). Good death inventory: A measure for evaluating good death from the bereaved family member’s perspective. Journal of pain and symptom management, 35(5), 486–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shin, D. W., Choi, J., Miyashita, M., Choi, J. Y., Kang, J., Baik, Y. J., Mo, H. N., Choi, J. S., Son, Y. S., & Lee, H. S. (2011). Measuring comprehensive outcomes in palliative care: validation of the Korean version of the Good Death Inventory. Journal of pain and symptom management, 42(4), 632–642.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yao, C. A., Hu, W. Y., Lai, Y. F., Cheng, S. Y., Chen, C. Y., & Chiu, T. Y. (2007). Does dying at home influence the good death of terminal cancer patients? Journal of pain and symptom management, 34(5), 497–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhao, J., Wong, F. K. Y., You, L., & Tao, H. (2019). Validation of the Chinese version of the good death inventory for evaluating end-of-life care from the perspective of the bereaved family. Journal of pain and symptom management, 58(3), 472–480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Weisman, A. D. (1988). Appropriate death and the hospice program. The Hospice Journal, 4(1), 65–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Patrick, D. L., Engelberg, R. A., & Curtis, J. R. (2001). Evaluating the quality of dying and death. Journal of pain and symptom management, 22(3), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-3924(01)00333-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Curtis, J. R., Patrick, D. L., Caldwell, E., et al. (1999). The quality of patient-doctor communication about endof-life care: A study of patients with advanced AIDS and their primary care clinicians. AIDS, 13, 1123–1131.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Curtis, J. R., Patrick, D. L., Caldwell, E., et al. (2010). Why don’t patients with AIDS and their clinicians talk about end-of-life care? Barriers to communication for patients with AIDS and their primary care clinicians. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160(11), 1690–1696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Curtis, J. R., Patrick, D. L., Engelberg, R. A., et al. (2002). A measure of the quality of dying and death: Initial validation using after-death interviews with family members [J]. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 24, 17e31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kentish-Barnes, N., Seegers, V., Legriel, S., et al. (2016). CAESAR: a new tool to assess relatives’ experience of dying and death in the ICU[J]. Intensive Care Medicine, 42, 995e1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Glavan, B. J., Engelberg, R. A., Downey, L., et al. (2008). Using the medical record to evaluate the quality of end-of-life care in the intensive care unit[J]. Critical Care Medicine, 36, 1138e1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kupeli, N., Candy, B., Tamura-Rose, G., Schofield, G., Webber, N., Hicks, S. E., Floyd, T., Vivat, B., Sampson, E. L., Stone, P., & Aspden, T. (2019). Tools measuring quality of death, dying, and care, completed after death: systematic review of psychometric properties. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 12(2), 183–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Addington-Hall, J. (2002). Research sensitivities to palliative care patients. European Journal of Cancer Care, 11(3), 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2354.2002.00343.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Beaver, K., Luker, K., & Woods, S. (1999). Conducting research with the terminally ill: Challenges and considerations. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 5(1), 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Janssens, R., & Gordijn, B. (2000). Clinical trails in palliative care: An ethical evaluation. Patient Education and Counselling, 41, 55–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Karlawish, J. H. (2003). Conducting research that involves subjects at the end of life who are unable to give consent. Journal of pain and symptom management, 25(4), S14–S24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Addington-Hall, J. M., & McPherson, C. (2001). After-death interviews with surrogates/bereaved family members: Some issues of validity. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 22, 794–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Teno, J. M. (2005). Measuring end-of-life care outcomes retrospectively. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 8(supplement 1), s-42-s−49. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2005.8.s-42

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by fund for building world-class universities (disciplines) of Renmin University of China [2021].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Work and Social Policy, School of Sociology and Population Studies, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

    Shuo Xu, Yue Fang, Hanzhang Chen, Chen Zhang & Yang Liu

  2. School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, USA

    Kang Sun

Authors
  1. Shuo Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yue Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hanzhang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kang Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chen Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuo Xu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required for conducting this review.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, S., Fang, Y., Chen, H. et al. A systematic review of instruments measuring the quality of dying and death in Asian countries. Qual Life Res 32, 1831–1842 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03307-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03307-8

Keyword

Search

Navigation