This project protocol aims to define and validate the nursing diagnosis wish to die in patients with advanced disease, establishing its defining characteristics and related factors, and to define nursing-specific interventions for this new nursing diagnosis.
We will conduct a prospective study consisting of three phases: A) Establishing the conceptual foundation through an overview of systematic reviews; B) Concept analysis involving a panel of experts, followed by use of the Delphi technique and application of Fehring’s [33] diagnostic content validation (DCV) model to reach a consensus; C) Identification and validation of nursing-specific interventions for the new diagnosis, once again involving a panel of experts and use of the Delphi technique. Figure 1 shows a summary graphic of the three proposed phases.
Insert Figure 1 about here.
Figure Legend: Methodological research design
Phase A: Foundational Knowledge
Design. We will conduct an overview of all published systematic reviews of research into the wish to die or WTHD among people with life-limiting conditions, the aim being to analyse all the evidence regarding definitions of the WTHD, its aetiology and related factors, its assessment and clinical interventions for responding to it. This review will serve to establish the conceptual framework that will underpin all subsequent phases of the research.
Data Collection and Data Analysis. A search strategy will be designed and applied to the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Articles for inclusion in the review will be selected in accordance with PRISMA guidelines [34].
After selecting articles for inclusion in the review, we will evaluate their quality, create a data extraction template and carry out an analysis and integrative synthesis of the research findings. The outcome of the review process will provide the conceptual framework for developing the nursing diagnosis and allow us to draw up a preliminary definition and set of defining characteristics and related factors, which will then be subject to concept analysis and content validation in Phase B of the research.
Phase B: Concept Analysis and Validation of Diagnosis Content
B.1. Concept Analysis: Name of the Diagnosis (the diagnostic label) Based on the Preliminary Definition
Design. Exploratory, descriptive, and diagnostic label study involving a panel of experts. A panel of experts will analyse the proposed definition of the diagnosis and consider its type (syndrome or risk diagnosis) (see rationale in additional file).
Sample/Participants. A convenience sample of 8-10 participants [35] will be recruited. They will all be nurses with expertise in (a) nursing methods and/or (b) palliative care in a variety of settings (e.g. acute care hospital, outpatient clinic, domiciliary care and home support, long-stay care facility). This will ensure heterogeneity in the sample. The rationale for focusing on palliative care is that patients here are more likely to express a WTHD than is the case in other settings [36].
Inclusion Criteria. (a) For experts in nursing methods: at least 5 years experience of teaching nursing methods. (b) For experts in palliative care: at least 10 years experience in this field. For all participants: ability to communicate and express a reasoned opinion, extensive knowledge of and interest in the topic, scientific attitude (basing decisions on facts and data), intrinsic motivation (without need for external forms of reward) and signing informed consent. Professionals who declare any type of conflict of interest will be excluded.
Data Collection and Data Analysis. Potential participants will be sent an email inviting them to form part of an expert panel and explaining its purpose, the tasks involved and the estimated time commitment (2-2.5 h). The plan is to use a virtual meeting platform (such as Zoom or Google Meet), the Google Jamboard and Google Forms to work on the proposed content and to classify and prioritise information.
The work of the expert panel will involve the following stages: (1) generation of ideas, (2) discussion, (3) summing up and conclusions, and (4) classification and prioritisation.
The labels proposed by the experts for the diagnosis will be categorised, and this, together with the analysis of 'contextual units', will enable a consensus to be reached regarding the most suitable label for the diagnosis, its definition, defining characteristics and related factors. This information will then be collated in the form of a questionnaire comprising two sections: 1) The diagnostic label and its definition, and 2) Defining characteristics and related factors. This questionnaire will be used for the validation of diagnosis content in phase B.2.
B.2. Validation of Diagnosis Content
Design. Exploratory, descriptive, validation study using Fehring's [33] DCV model to determine the extent to which the defining characteristics and related factors are representative of the diagnosis.
Sample/Participants. A convenience sample will be recruited comprising both academic and clinical nurses with expertise in areas of relevance to the diagnosis (i.e. nursing methods and/or palliative care). Participants in phase B.1 may also take part in this phase (B.2). Although Fehring [33] suggests that around 50 experts are sufficient for application of the DCV model, Nunnally and Bernstein [37] argue that greater reliability is obtained with a sample of 200, and accordingly this is the number we will recruit for this phase of the study.
Inclusion Criteria. Same as in B.1.
Data Collection. Potential participants will be sent an email inviting them to take part in a Delphi study and explaining its purpose, the tasks involved and the approximate time commitment. Participants will be recruited through snowball sampling of academic and clinical nurses in palliative care. Experts who agree to participate will be asked to respond to an online questionnaire (hosted using Survey Monkey or Google Forms). The first part of the questionnaire will concern the diagnostic label and its definition; this will be broken down into several items, and in each case the task for experts will be to rate their agreement with the item statement. Two or three Delphi rounds will be conducted, with consensus ≥80% being required for an item to be accepted.
The second part of the questionnaire will list the defining characteristics and related factors for the diagnosis. This part of the questionnaire will be answered just once. The task for each expert will be to rate the extent to which each defining characteristic and related factor is, in their view, representative of the diagnosis, using the 5-point scale described in Fehring's DCV model: 1 = not at all representative of the diagnosis; 2 = very little representative; 3 = somewhat representative; 4 = considerably representative; and 5 = very representative. Also as in Fehring's model, weighted ratios will then be calculated for the ratings given to each defining characteristic and related factor, as follows: 0 = 1; 0.25 = 2; 0.50 = 3; 0.75 = 4; and 1 = 5.
Data Analysis. The data will be analysed by two members of the research team.
For part 1 of the questionnaire (the diagnostic label and its definition): Questionnaire responses (ratings) will be entered into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and the degree of consensus (weighted targeted agreement) for each statement will be calculated using the algorithm proposed by Tastle and Wierman [38]. Up to three Delphi rounds will be conducted, until consensus ≥80% is reached.
For part 2 of the questionnaire (defining characteristics and related factors): The mean weighted ratio will be calculated for each of the defining characteristics and related factors. Those with a ratio of .80 or higher will be considered as 'major' and as highly representative of the diagnosis, while those with a ratio less than .80 but greater than .50 will be classed as 'minor'. Defining characteristics and related factors with a ratio less than .50 will be considered unrepresentative and will not be included.
Finally, a total DCV score will be calculated by summing the mean ratio scores and dividing by the total number of defining characteristics and related factors that have been retained. This score, which ranges between 0 and 1, will provide an indication of overall confidence in the content of the new diagnosis.
Phase C: Identification and Validation of Nursing-Specific Interventions for the New Diagnosis
Design. Exploratory, descriptive and consensus study involving a panel of experts and the Delphi technique.
C.1. Panel of experts: To identify nursing-specific interventions for the new nursing diagnosis.
Sample/Participants. Purposive sampling will be used to recruit 8-10 nurse experts in palliative care who meet the following inclusion criteria: more than 10 years experience in palliative care, ability to communicate and express a reasoned opinion, and signing informed consent. Participants will be recruited from different geographical regions and a variety of palliative care settings (e.g. acute care hospital, outpatient clinic, domiciliary care and home support, long-stay care facility) so as to ensure heterogeneity in the sample. Experts who participated in phases B.1 and B.2 will also be eligible for this phase.
Data Collection and Data Analysis. Potential participants will be sent an email inviting them to form part of an expert panel and explaining its purpose, the tasks involved and the estimated time commitment (2.5-3 h). The plan is to use a virtual meeting platform, as described for phase B.1.
The decisions reached by the expert panel will be collated in the form of a questionnaire setting out the proposed nursing interventions for patients with advanced disease who express a wish to die. This questionnaire will then be used for the Delphi study in the next phase (C.2).
C.2. Delphi study: To reach an expert consensus regarding nursing-specific interventions for the new diagnosis.
Sample/Participants. Purposive sampling will be used to recruit an international panel of 50 nurse experts in the wish to die among patients in palliative care, who must fulfil at least one of the following inclusion criteria: (a) nurses with more than 5 years professional experience of palliative care; (b) nurse researchers in the field of palliative care. In order to ensure a high-quality Delphi process, we will recruit panellists from various geographical regions and with experience in different palliative care settings (e.g. acute care hospital, outpatient clinic, domiciliary care and home support, long-stay care facility).
Data Collection. Potential participants will be sent an email inviting them to take part in a Delphi study and explaining its purpose, the tasks involved and the approximate time commitment. Experts who agree to participate will be asked to respond to an online questionnaire (hosted using Survey Monkey or Google Forms). Two or three Delphi rounds will be conducted, with consensus ≥80% being required for a nursing intervention to be accepted.
Data Analysis. Data will be analysed by two members of the research team. Questionnaire responses (ratings) will be entered into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and the degree of consensus (weighted targeted agreement) for each statement will be calculated using the algorithm proposed by Tastle and Wierman [38].
Ethical Considerations
The study will be conducted in accordance with established codes of research ethics. The research protocol obtained the approval of the ethics committee of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya. Participation will be entirely voluntary, and no remuneration will be offered. All data will be stored securely, and participants will be required to sign informed consent for their data to be used for research purposes. Three members of the research team will be responsible for analysing and coding the information obtained through the expert panels, and only they will have access to this data. Only the principal investigator will know the identity of experts who agree to participate in the panels. The responses of participants in the Delphi studies will be anonymised, and only two members of the research team will have access to the full data set.
Rigour
The researchers behind this project are a close-knit team with combined experience in palliative care, nursing and systematic reviews. Specifically, the team comprises: 1) three internationally recognised researchers on the wish to die among patients with advanced disease; 2) 75% of its members are nurses with expertise in relation to standardised nursing language and terminology; 3) two researchers are nurses with experience of validating nursing diagnoses using Fehring's [33] model; and 4) three of the team members teach nursing methods on university courses. In addition, the principal investigator is Chair of the European Association for Palliative Care Task Force Wish to hasten death in patients with life-threatening illness: A clinical issue, which comprises 26 researchers from 15 different institutions spread across 10 countries and three continents.
Team members have also shown leadership on the international stage, insofar as they were involved in research that led to an international consensus definition of the wish to hasten death and its related factors. As in the study proposed here, this research also made use of an international panel of experts and the Delphi technique. Finally, the team includes three senior researchers with expertise in conducting systematic and integrative reviews. The fact that the conceptual framework for developing the nursing diagnosis and its content will be derived from an overview of systematic reviews brings rigour to the project and supports its validity.
Timeline and Expected Results
Table 1 shows the research timeline and the expected results in each of the three phases.
Table 1. Phases of the research project, timeline, design and methodology, and expected results of each phase.
Phase
|
Purpose of phase
|
Timeline
|
Research design and methodology
|
Expected results
|
A
|
Foundational knowledge
|
May 2022-May 2023
|
Overview of systematic reviews
|
The outcome of the review will provide the conceptual framework for developing the diagnosis and allow us to draw up a preliminary definition and set of defining characteristics and related factors.
|
B
|
B.1. Concept analysis: Name of the diagnosis (label) based on the proposed definition
|
May-July 2023
|
Exploratory, descriptive and diagnostic label study involving a panel of experts
|
Proposal of the most suitable label for the diagnosis, its definition, defining characteristics and related factors. This information will be collated in the form of a questionnaire comprising two sections:
- The diagnostic label and its definition
- Defining characteristics and related factors
This questionnaire will then be used for the validation of diagnosis content (B.2).
|
B.2. Validation of diagnosis content
|
Sept-November 2023
|
Delphi study to reach a consensus regarding the diagnostic label and its definition
|
Expert consensus regarding the diagnostic label and its definition.
|
Dec 2023-February 2024
|
Validation of diagnosis content using Fehring’s diagnostic content validation (DCV) model to determine the extent to which the defining characteristics and related factors are representative of the diagnosis
|
Measure of the extent to which each defining characteristic and related factor is representative of the diagnosis
|
Indicator of overall level of confidence in the content of the diagnosis
|
C
|
Identification and validation of nursing-specific interventions for the diagnosis
|
March-June 2024
|
C.1. Exploratory, descriptive and consensus study involving a panel of experts
|
Initial definition of nursing-specific interventions for responding to the wish to die.
|
Proposed interventions will be collated in the form of a questionnaire for use in a Delphi study.
|
July-Dec 2024
|
C.2. Exploratory, descriptive and consensus study using the Delphi technique
|
Expert consensus regarding nursing-specific interventions that can form part of the care plan for people with advanced disease who express the wish to die or hasten death.
|