Dataset Information

Refining scores based on patient reported outcomes - statistical and medical perspectives.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) are gaining more and more importance in the context of clinical trials. The assessment of PRO is frequently performed by questionnaires where the multiple items of a questionnaire are usually pooled within summarizing scores. These scores are used as variables to measure subjective aspects of treatments and diseases. In clinical research, the calculation of these scores is mostly kept very simple, e.g. by a simple summation of item values. In the medical literature, there is hardly any guidance for performing a refinements of questionnaires and for deducing adequate scores. In contrast, in psychometric literature, there are plenty of more sophisticated methods, which overcome typical assumptions made in traditional (sum) scores, however to the prize of more complicated algorithms, which might be difficult to communicate. When faced with the practical task to refine an existing questionnaire, there exist a clear gap of guidance for applied medical researchers. By this article we try to fill this important gap between psychometric theory and medical application by illustrating our methodological choices on the example of a clinical PRO questionnaire. METHODS:Based on our experiences with the refinement of the BCTOS, a PRO questionnaire to assess aesthetic and function after breast conserving therapy in breast cancer patients, we present the following general steps that we performed by refining the BCTOS questionnaire and its scores: 1. Refinement of the length of the questionnaire and the (item-factor) structure. 2. Selection of the factor score estimation method. 3. Validation of the refined questionnaire and scores with respect to validity, reliability and structure based on a validation cohort. RESULTS:Our step-step-step procedure helped us to shorten the current form of the BCTOS and to redefine the factor structure. By this, the compliance of patients can be increased and the interpretation of the results becomes more coherent. CONCLUSIONS:We present a step-by-step procedure to refine an existing medical questionnaire along with its scores illustrated and discussed by the refinement of the BCTOS. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Due to the character of the study (no intervention study), no registration was performed.

SUBMITTER: Feißt M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6670170 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Refining scores based on patient reported outcomes - statistical and medical perspectives.

Feißt Manuel M Hennigs André A Heil Jörg J Moosbrugger Helfried H Kelava Augustin A Stolpner Ilona I Kieser Meinhard M Rauch Geraldine G

BMC medical research methodology 20190731 1

<h4>Background</h4>Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) are gaining more and more importance in the context of clinical trials. The assessment of PRO is frequently performed by questionnaires where the multiple items of a questionnaire are usually pooled within summarizing scores. These scores are used as variables to measure subjective aspects of treatments and diseases. In clinical research, the calculation of these scores is mostly kept very simple, e.g. by a simple summation of item values. In th ...[more]

PMID: 31366326

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital patient reported outcomes are used increasingly in daily care and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Their purpose includes increased focus on patient wellbeing, reduction in avoidable follow-up consultations and increased patient self-management. However, implementation issues occur and studies indicate patients may have concerns, particularly regarding having fewer face-to-face consultations. This study aims to explore patients' perspectives of use and non-use of digital patient reported outcomes and to understand the mechanisms underpinning patient reluctance to engage with this health technology.ResultsSixteen patients with inflammatory bowel disease at a regional hospital in Denmark were interviewed about their experiences of, and perspectives on, digital patient reported outcomes. A certain level of eHealth literacy was found to be a fundamental condition for use, while other factors were barriers or facilitators for use of digital PROs. Patients' main concerns were about potential consequences for their care and relationship with the clinic. Most patients in stable remission were satisfied with the hospital being a "life-line" if their symptoms worsened, and perceived digital patient reported outcomes to be an efficient tool to establish that "life-line". Patients with severe symptoms and a high degree of emotional distress related to their disease valued the potential for digital patient reported outcomes to increase their clinicians' focus on mental health and extra-intestinal symptoms.ConclusionThis study found that if patients had sufficient digital literacy, they perceived digital patient reported outcomes to be a useful replacement for face-to-face consultations. However, they were concerned about digital patient reported outcomes' effect on the patient-clinician relationship and its ability to detect worsening of symptoms. These concerns may be mitigated by good patient-clinician relationships, and the option for patients to maintain direct telephone contact with their gastroenterology specialist.

Project description:ImportanceAccurate documentation of patient symptoms in the electronic medical record (EMR) is important for high-quality patient care.ObjectiveTo explore inconsistencies between patient self-report on an Eye Symptom Questionnaire (ESQ) and documentation in the EMR.Design, setting, and participantsThis investigation was an observational study in comprehensive ophthalmology and cornea clinics at an academic institution among a convenience sample of 192 consecutive eligible patients, of whom 30 declined participation. Patients were recruited at the Kellogg Eye Center from October 1, 2015, to January 31, 2016. Patients were eligible to be included in the study if they were 18 years or older.Main outcomes and measuresConcordance of symptoms reported on an ESQ with data recorded in the EMR. Agreement of symptom report was analyzed using κ statistics and McNemar tests. Disagreement was defined as a negative symptom report or no mention of a symptom in the EMR for patients who reported moderate to severe symptoms on the ESQ. Logistic regression was used to investigate if patient factors, physician characteristics, or diagnoses were associated with the probability of disagreement for symptoms of blurry vision, pain or discomfort, and redness.ResultsA total of 162 patients (324 eyes) were included. The mean (SD) age of participants was 56.6 (19.4) years, 62.3% (101 of 162) were female, and 84.9% (135 of 159) were white. At the participant level, 33.8% (54 of 160) had discordant reporting of blurry vision between the ESQ and EMR. Likewise, documentation was discordant for reporting glare (48.1% [78 of 162]), pain or discomfort (26.5% [43 of 162]), and redness (24.7% [40 of 162]), with poor to fair agreement (κ range, -0.02 to 0.42). Discordance of symptom reporting was more frequently characterized by positive reporting on the ESQ and lack of documentation in the EMR (Holm-adjusted McNemar P < .03 for 7 of 8 symptoms except for blurry vision [P = .59]). Return visits at which the patient reported blurry vision on the ESQ had increased odds of not reporting the symptom in the EMR compared with new visits (odds ratio, 5.25; 95% CI, 1.69-16.30; Holm-adjusted P = .045).Conclusions and relevanceSymptom reporting was inconsistent between patient self-report on an ESQ and documentation in the EMR, with symptoms more frequently recorded on a questionnaire. These results suggest that documentation of symptoms based on EMR data may not provide a comprehensive resource for clinical practice or "big data" research.

Project description:Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction.Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011.Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction.Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects.From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.78).Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I(2)?>?50 % in most analyses).Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) (eg, symptoms, functioning) can inform patient management. However, patients and clinicians often have difficulty interpreting score meaning. The authors tested approaches for presenting PRO data to improve interpretability.MethodsThis mixed-methods study included an Internet survey of cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers circulated via snowball sampling, plus individual in-person interviews. Clinical importance was conveyed using 3 approaches (presented in random order): normal score range shaded green, concerning scores circled in red, and red threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Versions also tested 2 approaches to score directionality: higher = more (better for function, worse for symptoms) and higher = better for both function and symptoms. Qualitative data from online comments and in-person interviews supplemented quantitative results on interpretation accuracy, clarity, and the "most useful" format.ResultsThe survey included 1113 respondents: 627 survivors, 236 clinicians, and 250 researchers, plus 10 patients and 10 clinicians who were purposively sampled interviewees. Interpretation accuracy ranged from 53% to 100%. The formats in which higher = better were interpreted more accurately versus those in which higher = more (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.58) and were more likely to be rated "very"/"somewhat" clear (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70) and "very" clear (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18-1.58). Red circle formats were interpreted more accurately than green-shaded formats when the first format presented (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.65). Threshold-line formats were more likely to be rated "very" clear than green-shaded (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.71) and red-circled (OR, 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02-1.46) formats. Threshold lines were most often selected as "most useful."ConclusionsThe current results support presenting PRO data with higher = better directionality and threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Cancer 2017;123:1848-1859. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published byWiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations aremade.

Dataset Information

Refining scores based on patient reported outcomes - statistical and medical perspectives.

Publications

Refining scores based on patient reported outcomes - statistical and medical perspectives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets