A feasibility study of Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care (SPARC): a holistic needs assessment questionnaire

A feasibility study of an holistic needs assessment questionnaire in a supportive and palliative care service using the Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care (SPARC)

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN25758268

Enrollment

500

Registered

2011-07-05

Start date

2010-01-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2022-04-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

All patients (cancer and non cancer) referred to the service Cancer Cancer

Interventions

1. The study will be carried out with in-patients, out-patients and in community settings, to assess whether using the SPARC tool makes a difference to symptoms and concerns, quality of life, needs id

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Any diagnosis (cancer and non-cancer) 2. Any referral to the service 3. Patients 18 years old or above 4. Patients able to give informed consent

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Incapable of giving informed consent 2. Incapable of completing SPARC even with the help of a relative or informal carer 3. Under 18 years old

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
1. The difference in score between the patient Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCAW) on the patient self-scoring visual analogue scale at baseline and the two-week follow up 2. Assuming the changes in the score (baseline to week 2) are normally distributed, a t-test will be carried out to test the null hypothesis that the difference between the intervention and control groups in the mean score on the first symptom nominated on the scale at baseline and two weeks is zero 3. To detect a medium difference between two independent sample means requires a minimum of 64 individuals in each group with scores at baseline and two weeks (Cohen, 1992). Therefore, a total of 128 patients will have to be recruited. 4. In order collect both baseline and follow-up data from 128 patients, 500 patients will be recruited to the study, assuming that approximately one quarter will be able to participate at the two-week follow-up. 5. The calculation for the sample size has taken account of the attrition to be expected in this population overall, although with varied survival rates, we can also expect to recruit sufficient numbers of patients able to give useable follow-up data. The statistical analysis will therefore be predominantly descriptive, with correlations drawn between specific demographic and medical variables with SPARC scores.	—

Measure

Time frame

1. The difference in score between the patient Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCAW) on the patient self-scoring visual analogue scale at baseline and the two-week follow up 2. Assuming the changes in the score (baseline to week 2) are normally distributed, a t-test will be carried out to test the null hypothesis that the difference between the intervention and control groups in the mean score on the first symptom nominated on the scale at baseline and two weeks is zero 3. To detect a medium difference between two independent sample means requires a minimum of 64 individuals in each group with scores at baseline and two weeks (Cohen, 1992). Therefore, a total of 128 patients will have to be recruited. 4. In order collect both baseline and follow-up data from 128 patients, 500 patients will be recruited to the study, assuming that approximately one quarter will be able to participate at the two-week follow-up. 5. The calculation for the sample size has taken account of the attrition to be expected in this population overall, although with varied survival rates, we can also expect to recruit sufficient numbers of patients able to give useable follow-up data. The statistical analysis will therefore be predominantly descriptive, with correlations drawn between specific demographic and medical variables with SPARC scores.

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
1. The change in scores in the EQ-5D at the two time points 2. Changes in the enablement scores (PEI) at the two time points 3. Comparisons will be made between the intervention group and the waiting list control 4. Outcomes in patients entering the service in different ways, as inpatients where input is requested, as inpatients on the Palliative Care Unit, and as outpatients, will be explored 5. The pattern of actions taken and referrals made as a result of the SPARC screening tool will be examined, by analysis of the clinical record 6. Comparisons will be made regarding MYCAW patient nominated concerns, EQ-5D, and the PEI at baseline between patient groups (long term conditions, cancer survivors, and people needing end of life care)	—

Measure

Time frame

1. The change in scores in the EQ-5D at the two time points 2. Changes in the enablement scores (PEI) at the two time points 3. Comparisons will be made between the intervention group and the waiting list control 4. Outcomes in patients entering the service in different ways, as inpatients where input is requested, as inpatients on the Palliative Care Unit, and as outpatients, will be explored 5. The pattern of actions taken and referrals made as a result of the SPARC screening tool will be examined, by analysis of the clinical record 6. Comparisons will be made regarding MYCAW patient nominated concerns, EQ-5D, and the PEI at baseline between patient groups (long term conditions, cancer survivors, and people needing end of life care)

—

Countries

England, United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026