Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments for Physical Symptoms Among Patients Receiving Maintenance Dialysis: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving dialysis have poor health-related quality of life. Physical symptoms are highly prevalent among dialysis-dependent patients and play important roles in health-related quality of life. A range of symptom assessment tools have been used in dialysis-dependent patients, but there has been no previous systematic assessment of the existing symptom measures' content, validity, and reliability. STUDY DESIGN:Systematic review of the literature. SETTINGS & POPULATION:Patients with ESRD on maintenance dialysis therapy. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES:Instruments with 3 or more physical symptoms previously used in dialysis-dependent patients and evidence of validity or reliability testing. INTERVENTION:Patient-reported physical symptom assessment instrument. OUTCOMES:Instrument symptom-related content, validity, and reliability. RESULTS:From 3,148 screened abstracts, 89 full-text articles were eligible for review. After article exclusion and further article identification by reference reviews, 58 articles on 23 symptom assessment instruments with documented reliability or validity testing were identified. Of the assessment instruments, 43.5% were generic and 56.5% were ESRD specific. Symptoms most frequently assessed were fatigue, shortness of breath, insomnia, nausea and vomiting, and appetite. Instruments varied widely in respondent time burden, recall period, and symptom attributes. Few instruments considered recall periods less than 2 weeks and few assessed a range of symptom attributes. Psychometric testing was completed for congruent validity (70%), known-group validity (25%), responsiveness (30%), internal consistency (78%), and test-retest reliability (65%). Content validity was assessed in dialysis populations in 57% of the 23 instruments. LIMITATIONS:Consideration of physical symptoms only and exclusion of single symptom-focused instruments. CONCLUSIONS:The number of available instruments focused exclusively on physical symptoms in dialysis patients is limited. Few symptom-containing instruments have short recall periods, assess diverse symptom attributes, and have undergone comprehensive psychometric testing. Improved symptom-focused assessment tools are needed to improve symptom evaluation and symptom responsiveness to intervention among dialysis-dependent patients.

SUBMITTER: Flythe JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4658252 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments for Physical Symptoms Among Patients Receiving Maintenance Dialysis: A Systematic Review.

Flythe Jennifer E JE Powell Jill D JD Poulton Caroline J CJ Westreich Katherine D KD Handler Lara L Reeve Bryce B BB Carey Timothy S TS

American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation 20150723 6

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving dialysis have poor health-related quality of life. Physical symptoms are highly prevalent among dialysis-dependent patients and play important roles in health-related quality of life. A range of symptom assessment tools have been used in dialysis-dependent patients, but there has been no previous systematic assessment of the existing symptom measures' content, validity, and reliability.<h4>Study design</h4>Systematic revie ...[more]

PMID: 26210069

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this endeavour is the capability of researchers, healthcare practitioners and managers to quantitatively evaluate implementation efforts using psychometrically sound instruments. To encourage and support the use of precise and accurate implementation outcome measures, this systematic review aimed to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings.MethodThe following data sources were searched from inception to March 2019, with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and the Cochrane library. Studies that evaluated the measurement properties of implementation outcome instruments in physical healthcare settings were eligible for inclusion. Proctor et al.'s taxonomy of implementation outcomes was used to guide the inclusion of implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Psychometric quality of the included instruments was assessed using the Contemporary Psychometrics checklist (ConPsy). Usability was determined by number of items per instrument.ResultsFifty-eight publications reporting on the measurement properties of 55 implementation outcome instruments (65 scales) were identified. The majority of instruments assessed acceptability (n = 33), followed by appropriateness (n = 7), adoption (n = 4), feasibility (n = 4), penetration (n = 4) and sustainability (n = 3) of evidence-based practice. The methodological quality of individual scales was low, with few studies rated as 'excellent' for reliability (6/62) and validity (7/63), and both studies that assessed responsiveness rated as 'poor' (2/2). The psychometric quality of the scales was also low, with 12/65 scales scoring 7 or more out of 22, indicating greater psychometric strength. Six scales (6/65) rated as 'excellent' for usability.ConclusionInvestigators assessing implementation outcomes quantitatively should select instruments based on their methodological and psychometric quality to promote consistent and comparable implementation evaluations. Rather than developing ad hoc instruments, we encourage further psychometric testing of instruments with promising methodological and psychometric evidence.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2017 CRD42017065348.

Project description:ImportanceThe variability in individual symptom and adverse event reporting between pediatric patient-reports and proxy-reports is widely reported. However, the question of whether symptom profiles based on reports from children with cancer and their caregivers are similar or disparate have not yet been studied.ObjectiveTo compare proxy symptom reports with patient self-reports to assess alignment.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter cohort study was conducted from October 2016 to December 2018 from data collected at 9 pediatric cancer centers. Participants were a convenience sample of family caregivers or proxies of children aged 7 to 18 years who had received disease-directed oncology treatment in the form of chemotherapy for at least 1 month. Data were analyzed identifying clusters of individuals (ie, latent profiles) based on various responses (ie, indicators) in August 2021.ExposuresThe children of proxy participants received upfront chemotherapy. Children and proxies completed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) surveys at 2 time points: within 72 hours preceding treatment initiation and following the course of chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe latent profile analysis methods were applied to caregiver-proxy reports of PROMIS Pediatric symptom and function measures (anxiety, depressive symptoms, pain interference, fatigue, psychological stress, and physical function-mobility). The instrument categorized respondents as high symptom suffering, medium symptom suffering, and low symptom suffering (hereafter, high, medium, and low symptom groups, respectively).ResultsOf 580 approached proxies, 431 (368 [85.00%] were female) identified as legal guardians of children aged 7 to 18 years with a first cancer diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 13.03 [3.40] years; 235 [54.65%] were male). Proxy reports of children's experiences based on the 5 proxy PROMIS measures comprised 3 distinct symptom profiles. The most common proxy assessments of children's experiences were the moderate symptom groups (45.7% [197 of 431]) and the low symptom groups profiles (40.1% [173 of 431]). A high symptom groups profile emerged which represented 14.2% (61 of 431) of proxy assessments. The number of profiles and observed distribution of profile membership was similar between child and proxy reports. Proxy reports of individual symptoms generally recorded higher scores than child reports; however, no significant difference was observed between proxies and child profile model results for the PROMIS measures.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this cohort study suggest that, at the level of symptom severity profile, proxy caregiver reports may approximate the children's reports and may serve as a guide to care when the child is not able to self-report.

Project description:ObjectivesWe (1) collected instruments that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), activities of daily living (ADL) and social participation during follow-up after polytrauma, (2) described their use and (3) investigated other relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed in the studies.DesignSystematic Review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, as well as the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched from January 2005 to April 2018.Eligibility criteriaAll original empirical research published in English or German including PROs of patients aged 18-75 years with an Injury Severity Score≥16 and/or an Abbreviated Injury Scale≥3. Studies with defined injuries or diseases (e.g. low-energy injuries) and some text types (e.g. grey literature and books) were excluded. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded, but references screened for appropriate studies.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction, narrative content analysis and a critical appraisal (e.g. UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) were performed by two reviewers independently.ResultsThe search yielded 3496 hits; 54 publications were included. Predominantly, HRQoL was assessed, with Short Form-36 Health Survey applied most frequently. ADL and (social) participation were rarely assessed. The methods most used were postal surveys and single assessments of PROs, with a follow-up period of one to one and a half years. Other relevant PRO areas reported were function, mental disorders and pain.ConclusionsThere is a large variation in the assessment of PROs after polytrauma, impairing comparability of outcomes. First efforts to standardise the collection of PROs have been initiated, but require further harmonisation between central players. Additional knowledge on rarely reported PRO areas (e.g. (social) participation, social networks) may lead to their consideration in health services provision.Prospero registration numberCRD42017060825.

Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments for Physical Symptoms Among Patients Receiving Maintenance Dialysis: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments for Physical Symptoms Among Patients Receiving Maintenance Dialysis: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets