Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background In the era of evolving and emerging therapies, adolescents and young adults (AYAs) living with advanced cancer experience a high degree of uncertainty, making palliative care and end-of-life (PCEOL) discussions difficult. Clinical conversations determine values/preferences that guide shared decision-making and goals of treatment, including end-of-life care when cancer progresses. Initiating PCEOL conversations is challenging for clinicians. Objective This study describes the development and validation of an instrument that measures AYA readiness to engage in PCEOL clinical conversations. Methods A Ready-to-Talk Measure (R-T-M) was developed, guided by the revised conceptual model of readiness across 3 domains (awareness, acceptance, and willingness). Content experts evaluated validity, and 13 AYAs with advanced cancer participated in cognitive interviews. Acceptability (item applicability, clarity, interpretation, sensitivity, missingness) and experiences (benefit, burden) were analyzed. Results The scale content validity index was ≥0.90 for each domain. Forty-two of the 55 R-T-M items were acceptable without any change. Three items were deleted. Ten items were modified, and 3 were added. Adolescents and young adults wanted more items about friends/siblings and about AYA unique qualities for clinicians to know them better. Adolescents and young adults acknowledged benefit through talking about difficult, relevant topics. Conclusion Ready-to-Talk Measure validity was strengthened by deleting or modifying unclear or misinterpreted items and by adding items. Next steps include psychometric analysis to determine reliability/dimensionality and stakeholder input to make the R-T-M a clinically useful tool. Implications for Practice Ready-to-Talk Measure assessment of readiness to engage in PCEOL conversations while identifying unique preferences of AYAs holds promise for facilitating ongoing discussions.
Bell et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: