4.1 Article

Portuguese validation of the Prolonged Grief Disorder Questionnaire-Predeath (PG-12): Psychometric properties and correlates

Journal

PALLIATIVE & SUPPORTIVE CARE
Volume 15, Issue 5, Pages 544-553

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1478951516001000

Keywords

Predeath grief; Prolonged grief disorder; Confirmatory factor analysis; Discriminatory validity; Predictive validity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study aimed to contribute to the validation of the Portuguese version of the Prolonged Grief Disorder Questionnaire-Predeath (PG-12), examining its psychometric properties, including factorial, discriminant, and predictive validity. The prevalence of predeath prolonged grief disorder (PGD) and its psychosocial correlates were also analyzed. Method: The PG-12 was assessed in a sample of family caregivers (FCs) of oncological patients in palliative care. The factorial and discriminant validity of the PG-12 were evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis. The prevalence of predeath PGD was calculated and correlated with sociodemographic characteristics, perception of illness, intensity of care, coping, and caregiver burden. Prospective data were used to assess predictive validity. Results: The sample was composed of 94 FCs, mostly female (78.8%) and daughters (61.3%), with a mean age of 52.02 (SD=12.87). The PG-12 has been shown to be reliable, to have high internal consistency, to be monofactorial in structure, and to be independent from depression, anxiety, and burden, although predeath grief influences these symptoms. In our sample, 33% met the criteria for predeath PGD. The circumstances and coping mechanisms are also correlated with predeath grief. The PG-12 has also been shown to be predictive of postdeath outcome. Significance of results: The PG-12 can be a useful screening tool for early identification of risk for maladjustment to loss among family caregivers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available