Dataset Information

Validity and usefulness of a single-item measure of patient-reported bother from side effects of cancer therapy.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The improving efficacy of cancer treatment has resulted in an increasing array of treatment-related symptoms and associated burdens imposed on individuals undergoing aggressive treatment of their disease. Often, clinical trials compare therapies that have different types, and severities, of adverse effects. Whether rated by clinicians or patients themselves, it can be difficult to know which side effect profile is more disruptive or bothersome to patients. A simple summary index of bother can help to adjudicate the variability in adverse effects across treatments being compared with each other. METHODS:Across 4 studies, a total of 5765 patients enrolled in cooperative group studies and industry-sponsored clinical trials were the subjects of the current study. Patients were diagnosed with a range of primary cancer sites, including bladder, brain, breast, colon/rectum, head/neck, hepatobiliary, kidney, lung, ovary, pancreas, and prostate as well as leukemia and lymphoma. All patients were administered the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General version (FACT-G). The single item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" (GP5), rated on a 5-point Likert scale, is part of the FACT-G. To determine its validity as a useful summary measure from the patient perspective, it was correlated with individual and aggregated clinician-rated adverse events and patient reports of their general ability to enjoy life. RESULTS:Analyses of pharmaceutical trials demonstrated that mean GP5 scores ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") significantly differed by maximum adverse event grade (P<.001) in all trials, with a clear trend toward increasing GP5 scores with level of increasing adverse event grade. Effect sizes ranged from 0.13 to 0.46. Analyses of cooperative group trials demonstrated a significant correlation between GP5 and item GF3 ("I am able to enjoy life") in the predicted direction. CONCLUSIONS:The single FACT-G item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" is significantly associated with clinician-reported adverse events and with patients' ability to enjoy their lives. It has promise as an overall summary measure of the burden of a given set of treatment toxicities compared with another. Future research can identify the contribution of individual side effects compared with one another in terms of how each may contribute to overall bother. Cancer 2018;124:991-7. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

SUBMITTER: Pearman TP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5892190 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validity and usefulness of a single-item measure of patient-reported bother from side effects of cancer therapy.

Pearman Timothy P TP Beaumont Jennifer L JL Mroczek Daniel D O'Connor Mary M Cella David D

Cancer 20171113 5

<h4>Background</h4>The improving efficacy of cancer treatment has resulted in an increasing array of treatment-related symptoms and associated burdens imposed on individuals undergoing aggressive treatment of their disease. Often, clinical trials compare therapies that have different types, and severities, of adverse effects. Whether rated by clinicians or patients themselves, it can be difficult to know which side effect profile is more disruptive or bothersome to patients. A simple summary ind ...[more]

PMID: 29131323

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Validity is the ability of an instrument to measure what it claims to measure. It means the degree to which the empirical evidence supports the trustworthiness of interpretations based on the calculated scores. The hematological malignancy (HM) specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO), is a newly developed instrument for use in daily clinical practice as well as in research. This study, provides the evidence for construct validity of the HM-PRO, specifically focusing on the convergent and divergent validity compared to the other established instruments used in hematology. Methods This validation study adopted a prospective cross-sectional design where a heterogeneous group of patients diagnosed with different HMs and different disease state were recruited. A total of 905 patients were recruited from seven secondary care hospitals in the UK and online through five patient organizations. Patients were asked to complete the HM-PRO and other cancer specific PRO’s, FACT-G and EORTC QLQ C-30. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 23 statistical software. Results A total of 486 males (53.7%) and 419 females (46.3%), with a mean age of 64.3 (± 12.4) years and mean time since diagnosis of 4.6 ( ± 5.2) were recruited. The total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with the five functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical = ?0.71, Role = ?0.72, Emotional = ?0.64, Cognitive = ?0.58, Social = ?0.74—p < 0.001). With respect to correlation with FACT-G, the total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with Physical (?0.74), Emotional (?0.57), Functional (?0.66) domains and overall score of FACT-G (?0.74). Similarly, the total score of Part B of the HM-PRO highly correlated with three symptoms scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 (Fatigue scale = ?0.74, Nausea and Vomiting = ?0.52, Pain = ?0.59—p < 0.001) and individual symptom items (Dyspnea = 0.51, Insomnia= 0.43, Appetite loss = 0.54—p < 0.001). Conclusion The construct validity evidence presented in this research is a testimony to the HM-PRO’s ability to measure HRQoL issues which it intends to measure. This is of utmost importance when a PRO is used in routine clinical practice so that the interpretation of the scores or response to an individual item is understood by the clinicians/nurses as intended by the patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe quality of life of patients at all stages of hematological malignancy is greatly affected by the disease and its treatment. There is a wide range of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues important to these patients. Any new instrument developed to measure HRQoL of such patients should be content valid, i.e., the items should be comprehensively relevant to the patients and their health condition. The aim of the present study was to examine content validity of a hematological malignancy specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO) developed for use in routine clinical practice.MethodsFollowing literature review and semi-structured interviews, the generated themes and sub-themes were discussed to develop the prototype version of the HM-PRO. A 4-step approach was used for content validation: initial testing and cognitive interviewing; item rating; content validity panel meeting; final field testing and cognitive interviewing. Additional questions related to patients' perception of recall period and preferred sentence structure (i.e., question or statement) of the items were also asked during cognitive interviews.ResultsThe content analysis of 129 transcribed semi-structured interviews resulted in the prototype version of the instrument consisting of 58 items grouped into two parts: Part A (impact/HRQoL - 34 items) and Part B (signs and symptoms - 24 items). The initial testing showed intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of >0.8 for both Part A and Part B. Item rating for language clarity, completeness, relevance, and response scale by experts and patients showed content validity index for scales average >0.8 for both Part A and Part B, except 0.64 for relevance for Part A by the patient panel. The final testing of the revised version of the instrument showed the Cronbach's alpha value of 0.91 for Part A and 0.76 for Part B, suggesting high internal consistency, and ICC of 0.91 for Part A and 0.76 for Part B. The recall period of "today" for Part-A and "last 3 days" for Part-B were the patients' preferred "recall period." Furthermore, the patients expressed preference to the HM-PRO items as statements.ConclusionThe findings of this study confirm that the HM-PRO possesses a strong content validity, includes all the issues important to patients and is easy to read, understand and respond to spontaneously.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported experience measures aim to capture the patient's perspective of what happened during a care encounter and how it happened. However, due to a lack of guidance to support patient-reported experience measure development and reporting, the content validity of many instruments is unclear and ambiguous. Thus, the aim of this study was to establish the content validity of a newly developed Emergency Department Patient-Reported Experience Measure (ED PREM).MethodsED PREM items were developed based on the findings of a systematic mixed studies review, and qualitative interviews with Emergency Department patients that occurred during September and October, 2020. Individuals who participated in the qualitative interviews were approached again during August 2021 to participate in the ED PREM content validation study. The preliminary ED PREM comprised 37 items. A two-round modified, online Delphi study was undertaken where patient participants were asked to rate the clarity, relevance, and importance of ED PREM items on a 4-point content validity index scale. Each round lasted for two-weeks, with 1 week in between for analysis. Consensus was a priori defined as item-level content validity index scores of ≥0.80. A scale-level content validity index score was also calculated.ResultsFifteen patients participated in both rounds of the online Delphi study. At the completion of the study, two items were dropped and 13 were revised, resulting in a 35-item ED PREM. The scale-level content validity index score for the final 35-item instrument was 0.95.ConclusionsThe newly developed ED PREM demonstrates good content validity and aligns strongly with the concept of Emergency Department patient experience as described in the literature. The ED PREM will next be administered in a larger study to establish its' construct validity and reliability. There is an imperative for clear guidance on PREM content validation methodologies. Thus, this study may inform the efforts of other researchers undertaking PREM content validation.

Project description:BackgroundThe Global Research on the Impact of Dermatological Diseases (GRIDD) team is developing the new Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure of the impact of dermatological conditions on the patient's life, in partnership with patients. To develop PRIDD, we conducted a systematic review, followed by a qualitative interview study with 68 patients worldwide and subsequently a global Delphi survey of 1,154 patients to ensure PRIDD items were meaningful and important to patients.ObjectiveTo pilot test PRIDD with patients with dermatological conditions, focusing on its content validity (comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, and relevance), acceptability, and feasibility.MethodsWe conducted a theory-led qualitative study using the Three-Step Test-Interview method of cognitive interviewing. Three rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted online. Adults (≥ 18 years) living with a dermatological condition and who spoke English sufficiently to take part in the interview were recruited through the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations' (GlobalSkin) global membership network. The topic guide met the gold-standard COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) standards for cognitive interviewing. Analysis followed the thematic analytical model of cognitive interviewing.ResultsTwelve people (58% male) representing six dermatological conditions from four countries participated. Overall, patients found PRIDD to be comprehensible, comprehensive, relevant, acceptable, and feasible. Participants were able to discern the conceptual framework domains from the items. Feedback resulted in: the recall period being extended from 1 week to 1 month; removal of the 'not relevant' response option; and changes to the instructions and item ordering and wording to improve clarity and increase respondents' confidence in their ability to respond. These evidence-based adjustments resulted in a 26-item version of PRIDD.ConclusionThis study met the gold-standard COSMIN criteria for the pilot testing of health measurement instruments. The data triangulated our previous findings, in particular the conceptual framework of impact. Our findings illuminate how patients understand and respond to PRIDD and other patient-reported measurement instruments. The results of comprehensibility, comprehensiveness, relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of PRIDD provide evidence of content validity from the target population. The next step in the development and validation of PRIDD is psychometric testing.

Dataset Information

Validity and usefulness of a single-item measure of patient-reported bother from side effects of cancer therapy.

Publications

Validity and usefulness of a single-item measure of patient-reported bother from side effects of cancer therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets