Dataset Information

Systematic Review of Development and Content Validity of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Do We Measure What We Measure?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly important in daily care and research in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. This study provides an overview of the content and content validity of IBD-specific patient-reported outcome measures on three selected constructs. METHODS:Databases were searched up to May 2019 for development and/or content validity studies on IBD-specific self-report measures on health-related quality of life, disability, and self-report disease activity in adults. Evidence was synthesised on content validity in three aspects: relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology. Questionnaire items were organised in themes to provide an overview of important aspects of these constructs. RESULTS:For 14/44 instruments, 25 content validity studies were identified and 25/44 measures had sufficient content validity, the strongest evidence being of moderate quality, though most evidence is of low or very low quality. The Crohn's Life Impact Questionnaire and IBD questionnaire-32 on quality of life, the IBD-Control on disease activity, and the IBD Disability Index Self-Report and its 8-item version on disability, have the strongest evidence of sufficient relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, ranging from moderate to very low quality. A fair number of recurring items themes, possibly important for the selected constructs, was identified. CONCLUSIONS:The body of evidence for content validity of IBD-specific health-related quality of life, self-report disease activity, and disability self-report measures is limited. More content validity studies should be performed after reaching consensus on the constructs of interest for IBD, and studies should involve patients.

SUBMITTER: van Andel EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7493218 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic Review of Development and Content Validity of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Do We Measure What We Measure?

van Andel Emma M EM Koopmann Brechtje D M BDM Crouwel Femke F Noomen Casper G CG de Boer Nanne K H NKH van Asseldonk Dirk P DP Mokkink Lidwine B LB

Journal of Crohn's & colitis 20200901 9

<h4>Background and aims</h4>Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly important in daily care and research in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. This study provides an overview of the content and content validity of IBD-specific patient-reported outcome measures on three selected constructs.<h4>Methods</h4>Databases were searched up to May 2019 for development and/or content validity studies on IBD-specific self-report measures on health-related quality of life, disability, and self-repo ...[more]

PMID: 32211749

Similar Datasets

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: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:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that measure patient outcomes related to quality of life, health, and functioning, and are increasingly used to assess important outcomes from the patient's perspective. For PROMs to contribute to better health and better care, it is vital that their content validity be adequate. This requires patient involvement in various steps of PROM development. PROM developers not only recognize the benefits of patient involvement but also report difficulties in recruiting patients and experience patient involvement as time-consuming, logistically challenging, and expensive.ObjectiveThis study seeks to explore different strategies for disclosing the experiential knowledge of patients, namely through analyzing patient stories on the web and social media. The research questions are as follows: (1) how do bloggers living with a disease experience their health-related quality of life? (2) How are these experiences reflected in the domains and items of PROMs related to their disease?MethodsFirst, a qualitative analysis of blogs written by patients was performed. Second, subthemes and underlying codes resulting from this qualitative analysis were systematically compared with the domains and items in PROMs for the respective diseases that the bloggers write about. Blogs were identified via the Google search engine between December 2019 and May 2021.ResultsBloggers describe a wide range of experiences regarding their physical functioning and health; mental well-being; social network and support; daily life, education, work, and leisure; coping; and self-management. Bloggers also write about their positive and negative experiences with health care delivery, the organization of health care, and health care professionals. In general, patients' experiences as described in blogs were reflected in the domains and items of the PROMs related to their disease. However, except for diabetes mellitus, in all the sets of PROMs, potentially missing topics could be identified. Similarly, with the exception of Parkinson disease, all PROMs address issues that patients did not write about in their blogs and that might therefore be redundant.ConclusionsWeb-based patient stories in the form of blogs reveal how people living with a certain disease experience their health-related quality of life. These stories enable analyses of patients' experiences that can be used to assess the content validity of PROMs. This can be a useful step for researchers who are looking for sets of measuring instruments that match their purposes.

Project description:ImportanceChemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a substantial adverse effect of anticancer treatments. As such, the assessment of CIPN remains critically important in both research and clinic settings.ObjectiveTo compare the validity of various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with neurophysiological and sensory functional measures as the optimal method of CIPN assessment.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study evaluated participants treated with neurotoxic chemotherapy across 2 cohorts using a dual-study design. Participants commencing treatment were assessed prospectively at beginning of neurotoxic treatment, midtreatment, and at the end of treatment. Participants who completed treatment up to 5 years prior were assessed cross-sectionally and completed a single assessment time point. Participants were recruited from oncology centers in Australia from August 2015 to November 2022. Data analysis occurred from February to November 2023.ExposuresNeurotoxic cancer treatment including taxanes, platinums, vinca-alkaloids, proteasome inhibitors, and thalidomide.Main outcomes and measuresCIPN was assessed via PROMs (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC-CIPN20], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecological Cancer Group Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (FACT/GOG-Ntx), and the patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [PRO-CTCAE]), neurological and neurophysiological assessment (Total Neuropathy Score and sural and tibial compound nerve amplitudes), and sensory measures (Grating orientation, Von Frey monofilament, and 2-point discrimination tasks). Core measurement properties of CIPN outcome measures were evaluated. Convergent and known-groups validity was assessed cross-sectionally following treatment completion, and responsiveness was evaluated prospectively during treatment. Neurological, neurophysiological, and sensory outcome measure scores were compared between those who reported high and low levels of CIPN symptoms using linear regressions.ResultsA total of 1033 participants (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-59] years; 676 female [65.4%]) were recruited to this study, incorporating 1623 assessments. PROMs demonstrated best ability to accurately assess CIPN (convergent validity), especially the PRO-CTCAE composite score (r = 0.85; P < .001) and EORTC-CIPN20 (r = 0.79; P < .001). PROMS also demonstrated the best ability to discriminate between CIPN severity (known-groups validity) and to detect changes at onset of CIPN development (responsiveness), especially for EORTC-CIPN20 (d = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.83), FACT/GOG-Ntx (d = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81) and the PRO-CTCAE (d = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02). Other measures did not achieve threshold for convergent validity (α < 0.7). Neurophysiological and sensory measures did not demonstrate acceptable responsiveness. In regression models, neurological, neurophysiological, and sensory outcome measures were significantly impaired in participants who reported high levels of CIPN symptoms compared with those who reported low levels of CIPN symptoms.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of 1033 cancer patients, PROMs were the only measures to satisfy all 3 core measurement property criteria (convergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness). These findings suggest that adoption of PROMs in clinical practice can equip clinicians with valuable information in assessing CIPN morbidity.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to describe the stages undertaken to generate the items and conceptual framework of a new electronic personal assessment questionnaire for vascular conditions.DesignA mixed methods study: First a survey of vascular clinicians was completed to identify the most common conditions treated in vascular clinics and wards. Quantitative systematic reviews were done to identify validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for direct inclsuion in the new instrument. However, due to scarcity of validated PROMs, the items of the new instrument were mainly based on a large qualitative study of patients and systematic reviews of the qualitative evidence . This was followed by a quantitative clinicians' consensus study and, finally, a qualitative face validity study with patients.ParticipantsVascular patients participated in the primary qualitative study and the face validity study. In the qualitative study, 55 patients were interviewed, and for the face validity, 19 patients gave feedback. Twelve clinicians completed the survey and 13 completed two cycles of the clinicians' consensus study.ResultsThe items and scales in the electronic personal assessment questionnaire for vascular conditions (ePAQ-VAS) were generated based on the results of five systematic reviews evaluating existing PROMs for possible inclusion in ePAQ-VAS, five systematic reviews of qualitative evidence, a primary qualitative study involving 55 patients and clinicians' input. One hundred and sixty-eight items were initially generated, of which 59 were eliminated by the expert panel due to repetition. The instrument was divided into one generic and three disease-specific sections (abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery disease and lower limb vascular conditions). In each section, items were grouped together into putative scales. Fifty-five items were grouped across eight scales; the remaining items were kept as individual items, because of relevance to service users.ConclusionsThis multidimensional electronic questionnaire covers the most common vascular conditions. This is particularly important for patients presenting with mixed symptoms or multiple conditions. This tool captures symptomatology, health related quality of life (HRQoL) and other clinically relevant data, such as experience with services and comorbidities.

Dataset Information

Systematic Review of Development and Content Validity of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Do We Measure What We Measure?

Publications

Systematic Review of Development and Content Validity of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Do We Measure What We Measure?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets