The experience of “meaning in life” (MiL) is a major aspect of life satisfaction and psychological well-being. To assess this highly individual construct, idiographic measures with open-response formats have been developed. However, it can be challenging to categorize these individual experiences for interindividual comparisons. Our study aimed to derive MiL categories from individual listings and develop an integrative MiL model.

University students were asked to rate 58 MiL providing aspects recently found in a nationwide study using the Schedule for Meaning in Life Evaluation (SMiLE), an MiL instrument allowing for open responses. Pearson's correlations and factor analyses were used to test the unidimensionality of subsequently derived higher-order MiL categories. Multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, and factor analysis were performed to further analyze a latent MiL structure.

A total of 340 students participated in the study. Some 11 unidimensional categories consisting of 34 meaning-providing aspects were summarized into a circumplex model with four MiL domains: leisure/health, work/finances, culture/spirituality, and relationships (family, partnership, social relations).

This model seems to incorporate a major portion of individual respondent-generated MiL listings. It may be useful for future idiographic MiL studies to help organize individual experiences of MiL and allow for higher-level interindividual comparisons. Further studies including different samples are necessary to confirm this model or derive other MiL domains, for example, in palliative care patients or patients who are confronted with a loss of meaning.

This study aimed to develop a new and brief instrument to be employed in dignity measurement, one based on the perceptions of patients, relatives, and professionals about dignity.

Surveys of patients receiving palliative care, family caregivers, and palliative care professionals were first carried out (sample 1). In the second step, palliative care patients were surveyed with a pilot questionnaire (sample 2). Finally, a survey design was used to assess patients admitted into a home care unit (sample 3). Sample 1 included 78 subjects, including patients, family caregivers, and professionals. Some 20 additional palliative patients participated in sample 2. Finally, 70 more patients admitted to a home care unit participated were surveyed (sample 3). Together with the Palliative Patients' Dignity Scale (PPDS), our survey included other measures of dignity, anxiety, depression, resilient coping, quality of life, spirituality, and social support.

After analyzing data from steps 1 and 2, an eight-item questionnaire was presented for validation. The new scale showed appropriate factorial validity (χ2(19) = 21.43, p = 0.31, CFI = 0.99, GFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.07, and RMSEA = 0.04), reliability (internal consistency estimations of 0.75 and higher), criterial validity (significant correlations with the hypothesized related variables), and a cutoff criteria of 50 on the overall scale.

The new PPDS has appropriate psychometric properties that, together with its briefness, encourages its applicability for dignity assessment at the end of life.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the modified Thai Spiritual Well-Being Scale in patients with advanced cancer.

This cross-sectional study was employed to investigate psychometric properties. Some 196 participants from three tertiary hospitals in Bangkok and suburban Thailand were asked to complete a Personal Information Questionnaire (PIQ), The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), and the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS). Validity was determined by known-group, concurrent, and constructs validity. Reliability was estimated using internal consistency by Cronbach's α coefficients.

Three factors were extracted: so-called existential well-being, religious well-being, and peacefulness accounted for 71.44% of total variance. The Cronbach's α coefficients for total SWB, EWB, RWB, and peacefulness were 0.96, 0.94, and 0.93, respectively.

These findings indicate that the Thai SWBS is a valid and reliable instrument, and it presented one more factor than the original version.

Quality of life (QoL) is a multidimensional, subjective, and highly individual phenomenon. The current study speaks to the QoL domains identified by palliative patients living in Africa. The need to identify these domains has been recognized but seemed to still be lacking. This study filled this knowledge gap by providing the domains and by giving directions in terms of the assessment of QoL in palliative patients living in resource-restricted communities in South Africa.

We followed a multi-method approach and conducted a literature review to identify and describe the multidimensional QoL instruments used in African palliative care. A secondary analysis design and open-coding method was employed to identify the domains influencing the QoL of palliative patients living in a resource-restricted South African community, after which we compared these domains to the domains assessed by the identified QoL instruments.

We found that two multidimensional QoL of life instruments—the Missoula–Vitas Quality of Life Index (MVQoLI) and the Functional Assessments of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative Care (FACIT–Pal)—have been used in African palliative care and have identified various domains, grouped as four themes: physical concerns, psychosocial issues, financial restraints, and existential issues. The patient-identified QoL domains were to a great extent not assessed by the MVQoLI and FACIT–Pal.

Our study highlights the complexity of QoL and QoL assessment. A more accurate representation of the QoL of palliative patients living in resource-restricted communities might be obtained by using individualized measures or exploring what QoL means to these patients and selecting QoL instruments accordingly.

Although assessment of palliative patients' needs is a key issue in palliative care, a suitable instrument for identification of such needs is not available in Central European countries. Our objectives were to produce an adequate tool for identifying the importance and satisfaction of palliative patients' needs and to verify its psychometric properties.

The patient needs assessment in palliative care (PNAP) instrument was constructed based on a literature review and qualitative research (focus groups, n = 5). The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were verified by a cross-sectional study. The convergent validity of the questionnaire was determined by confirmatory factor analysis. Furthermore, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and construct validity were also tested. The qualitative research group comprised 30 participants (27 experts in palliative care, 1 patient, and 2 family members). Psychometric properties were evaluated in a group of 349 hospital inpatients terminally ill with chronic disease or cancer and receiving palliative care.

Based on the qualitative data analysis, a questionnaire was constructed that contained 42 items grouped into 5 domains. When testing the psychometric properties of the questionnaire, a new model containing 40 items in 7 domains was produced. Cronbach's α for the entire PNAP questionnaire was 0.89 on the importance scale and 0.80 on the satisfaction scale. Test–retest reliability was higher than 0.7 for all domains in both scales.

The results of tests on the psychometric properties of the PNAP questionnaire showed at least satisfactory validity and reliability, and it can be employed to assess the needs of palliative care patients in Central European countries.

Depression is a serious psychological problem in the palliative care setting. Brief screening tools for depression are lacking and need to be brief and acceptable. This study aimed to identify the properties of the single Portuguese question “Está deprimido?” (“Are you depressed?”) to screen for depression.

Retrospective study from 100 patient's medical records identifying the answers on the single Portuguese question for depression “Está deprimido?” (“Are you depressed?”) and the HADS depression sub-scale, using a score ≥11 on the latter as the gold standard for clinically significant depressive symptoms. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative values were calculated.

Response rate for the single Portuguese question for depression was 100%. Prevalence of depression symptoms (HADS-d ≥ 11) was 43%. To the question “Está deprimido?” 60 patients responded “yes.” Sixteen patients who replied “no” to the single question had clinically significant depressive symptoms based on the HADS depression sub-scale. The single tool had 65.2% sensitivity, 49.2% specificity and 50.0% and 64.4% of positive predictive and negative values, respectively.

In this first preliminary retrospective Portuguese study, the single question for depression has shown poor screening properties. Future research in larger and mixed patientś samples of Portuguese terminally ill is necessary to find more accurate and robust properties of this brief tool.

Identification of areas that family members consider important and in which they need help and support is one of the main goals of palliative care. Our research aimed to assess the psychometric properties of a Czech version of the Family Inventory of Needs (FIN).

The group comprised 272 family members of terminally ill cancer patients at the University Hospital in Ostrava. Reliability was assessed by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), test–retest reliability, and correlation of both scales and items within the scales (item–total correlation). To verify construct validity, exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis with a varimax rotation were utilized.

Using exploratory factor analysis, the following four factors (domains) were extracted: basic information, information on treatment and care, support, and comfort of the patient. Cronbach's α for the entire questionnaire was 0.924 on the importance scale and 0.912 for the satisfaction scale; for all domains, a value of α greater than 0.7 was ascertained. Test–retest reliability was also higher than 0.7 for all domains. On the satisfaction scale, a moderate correlation was confirmed between unmet needs in the domains basic information, support, and comfort of the patient, and the total score, and in selected quality-of-life domains.

The results of tests on the psychometric properties of the FIN questionnaire demonstrated at least satisfactory validity and reliability, and confirmed that it can be employed to assess the needs of palliative care patients in the Czech Republic.

Pain and delirium are commonly reported in older people with advanced cancer. However, assessing pain in this population is challenging, and there is currently no validated assessment tool for this task. The present retrospective cohort study was conducted to understand how healthcare workers (HCWs; nurses and physicians) determine that older cancer patients with delirium are in pain.

We reviewed the medical records of consecutive palliative care inpatients, 65 years of age and above (N = 113), in order to identify patient-based cues used by HCWs to make pain judgments and to examine how the cues differ by delirium subtype and outcome.

We found that HCWs routinely make judgments about pain in older patients with delirium using a repertoire of strategies that includes patient self-report and observations of spontaneous and evoked behavior. Using these strategies, HCWs judged pain to be highly prevalent in this inpatient palliative care setting.

These novel findings will inform the development of valid and reliable tools to assess pain in older cancer patients with delirium.

Ensuring a consistent and systematic approach to the delivery of care for people with advanced disease is a priority for palliative care services worldwide. Many clinical tools are available to aid in this process; however, they are often used sporadically, and implementation of a routine set of clinical tools to guide care planning in the specialist palliative care sector in Australia has not been achieved. This study sought to recommend key clinical tools that may assist with the assessment and care planning of specialist palliative care provision for patients and family caregivers admitted to specialist palliative care settings (home, hospital, and hospice).

A mixed-methods sequential approach over four phases was employed, involving: (1) a palliative care sector survey, (2) a systematic literature review, (3) an appraisal of identified clinical tools, and (4) a focus group with an expert panel who critiqued and endorsed a final suite of clinical tools recommended for specialist palliative care.

Twelve tools with practical relevance were recommended for use across settings of care.

Palliative services should review current practices and seek to implement this recommended suite of tools to enhance assessment and guide care delivery across care settings. Subsequent evaluation should also occur.