Dataset Information

Towards standardized patient reported physical function outcome reporting: linking ten commonly used questionnaires to a common metric.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Outcomes obtained using different physical function patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are difficult to compare. To facilitate standardization of physical function outcome measurement and reporting we developed an item response theory (IRT) based standardized physical function score metric for ten commonly used physical function PROMs.

Methods

Data of a total of 16,386 respondents from representative cohorts of patients with rheumatic diseases as well as the Dutch general population were used to map the items of ten commonly used physical function PROMs on a continuous latent physical function variable. The resulting IRT based common metric was cross-validated in an independent dataset of 243 patients with gout, osteoarthritis or polymyalgia in which four of the linked PROMs were administered.

Results

Our analyses supported that all 97 items of the ten included PROMs relate to a single underlying physical function variable and that responses to each item could be described by the generalized partial credit IRT model. In the cross-validation analyses we found congruent mean scores for four different PROMs when the IRT based scoring procedures were used.

Conclusions

We showed that the standardized physical function score metric developed in this study can be used to facilitate standardized reporting of physical function outcomes for ten commonly used make physical function PROMs.

SUBMITTER: Oude Voshaar MAH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6339672 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Towards standardized patient reported physical function outcome reporting: linking ten commonly used questionnaires to a common metric.

Oude Voshaar M A H MAH Vonkeman H E HE Courvoisier D D Finckh A A Gossec L L Leung Y Y YY Michaud K K Pinheiro G G Soriano E E Wulfraat N N Zink A A van de Laar M A F J MAFJ

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation 20181013 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>Outcomes obtained using different physical function patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are difficult to compare. To facilitate standardization of physical function outcome measurement and reporting we developed an item response theory (IRT) based standardized physical function score metric for ten commonly used physical function PROMs.<h4>Methods</h4>Data of a total of 16,386 respondents from representative cohorts of patients with rheumatic diseases as well as the Dutc ...[more]

PMID: 30317425

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become widely adopted in the care of patients with prostate cancer, but there is no validated crosswalk between two commonly used instruments, the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) and the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) instrument, which consists of the International Index of Erectile Function-6 (IIEF-6) questionnaire and the MSK radical prostatectomy urinary outcome scale. OBJECTIVE:To develop and validate bidirectional crosswalks between the sexual and urinary domains (single domain in MSK, separate incontinence and irritative/obstructive domains in EPIC-26) of the MSK and EPIC-26 instruments. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Radical prostatectomy (RP) patients completing instruments at MSK and Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) between January and May of 2017 were invited to enroll. Stratified random sampling (by institution, MSK urinary function score, and MSK erectile function score) was used to divide patient data into training and test sets. Models were developed to predict the domain score for each instrument using the other's item responses and domain scores. Performance was evaluated using capped root-mean-squared error and accuracy at established thresholds. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:We received 517 instruments at MSK and 1033 within MUSIC, which were assigned to training (825), post-RP test (412), and pre-RP test (313) sets. We found the crosswalks to have low error and high accuracy. Although the crosswalks are more accurate if responses to each item are known, it is possible to convert between instruments on the basis of a total domain score. CONCLUSIONS:The crosswalks are a valid way to convert between sexual and urinary domains of the MSK and EPIC-26 instruments. PATIENT SUMMARY:We developed and validated a set of formulas that allow conversion of sexual and urinary function scores between the Memorial Sloan Kettering and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form patient-reported outcome questionnaires. These crosswalks allow seamless transition between the two questionnaires.

Project description:BackgroundStandardised generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which measure health status are often unresponsive to change in primary care. Alternative formats, which have been used to increase responsiveness, include individualised PROMs (in which respondents specify the outcomes of interest in their own words) and transitional PROMs (in which respondents directly rate change over a period). The objective of this study was to test qualitatively, through cognitive interviews, two PROMs, one using each respective format.MethodsThe individualised PROM selected was the Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile (MYMOP). The transitional PROM was the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI). Twenty patients who had recently attended the GP were interviewed while completing the questionnaires. Interview data was analysed using a modification of Tourangeau's model of cognitive processing: comprehension, response, recall and face validity.ResultsPatients found the PEI simple to complete, but for some it lacked face validity. The transitional scale was sometimes confused with a status scale and was problematic in situations when the relevant GP appointment was part of a longer episode of care. Some patients reported a high enablement score despite verbally reporting low enablement but high regard for their GP, which suggested hypothesis-guessing. The interpretation of the PEI items was inconsistent between patients. MYMOP was more difficult for patients to complete, but had greater face validity than the PEI. The scale used was open to response-shift: some patients suggested they would recalibrate their definition of the scale endpoints as their illness and expectations changed.ConclusionsThe study provides information for both users of PEI/MYMOP and developers of individualised and transitional questionnaires. Users should heed the recommendation that MYMOP should be interview-administered, and this is likely to apply to other individualised scales. The PEI is open to hypothesis-guessing and may lack face-validity for a longer episode of care (e.g. in patients with chronic conditions). Developers should be cognisant that transitional scales can be inconsistently completed: some patients forget during completion that they are measuring change from baseline. Although generic questionnaires require the content to be more general than do disease-specific questionnaires, developers should avoid questions which allow broad and varied interpretations.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used to monitor patients during treatment. Healthcare provider preferences for individualized vs. standardized PROs have been understudied.MethodsThis study surveyed oncology and mental health providers to compare attitudes towards individualized and standardized PROs. We have developed a method for individualizing PROs, called precision PROs, and the survey specifically assessed preferences for this method. We compared attitudes and preferences by provider type and by whether respondents were current or never users of PROs.ResultsOncology providers expressed more positive attitudes for standardized PROs in treatment planning compared to mental health providers (F(1,440) = 5.978, p = 0.015). The interaction between provider type (oncology vs. mental health) and type of PRO (individualized vs. standardized) was not significant for the attitudes about the clinical utility of PROs (p = 0.709). When directly asked about the precision PRO approach, oncologists were less likely to prefer standardized items (OR = 0.478, p = 0.001) or have no preference (OR = 0.445, p = 0.007) to the precision PRO approach when compared to mental health providers. Qualitative analyses suggested standardized PROs may be simpler or easier to understand whereas individualized PROs better capture patient variability and the unique aspects of each patient's condition. Some mental health providers expressed reticence about letting patients choose how to tailor PROs. Never users of PROs reported more positive attitudes towards individualized measures than standardized measures whereas current users of PROs did not have a difference in attitudes (p = 0.010). User status was mostly unrelated to preferences.ConclusionResults suggest that healthcare provider preference for individualized PROs may differ by medical specialty. How PROs are tailored may need to differ by discipline. This is particularly important given that previous research showing a preference for individualized PROs over standardized was conducted with psychotherapists. Further research on patient preferences for individualized and standardized PROs is warranted as is research on the clinical utility of individualized PROs such as the precision PRO approach.

Dataset Information

Towards standardized patient reported physical function outcome reporting: linking ten commonly used questionnaires to a common metric.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Towards standardized patient reported physical function outcome reporting: linking ten commonly used questionnaires to a common metric.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure