Dataset Information

Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer-reported outcome, and performance outcome measures.

ABSTRACT: Within current literature and practice, the category of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures has been expanded into the broader category of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), which includes the subcategory of PRO, as well as clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO), observer-reported outcome (ObsRO), and performance outcome (PerfO) measure subcategories. However, despite this conceptual expansion, recommendations associated with translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of COAs remain focused on PRO measures, which has created a gap in specific process recommendations for the remaining types. This lack of recommendations has led to inconsistent approaches being implemented, leading to uncertainty in the scientific community regarding suitable methods. To address this gap, the ISOQOL Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) has developed recommendations specific to each of the three COA types currently lacking such documentation to support a standardized approach to their translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation. The recommended process utilized to translate ObsRO, ClinRO and PerfO measures from one language to another aligns closely with the industry standard process for PRO measures. The substantial differences between respondent categories across COA types require targeted approaches to the cognitive interviewing procedures utilized within the linguistic validation process, including the use of patients for patient-facing text in ClinRO measures, and the need to interview the targeted observers for ObsROs measures.

SUBMITTER: McKown S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7642163 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer-reported outcome, and performance outcome measures.

McKown Shawn S Acquadro Catherine C Anfray Caroline C Arnold Benjamin B Eremenco Sonya S Giroudet Christelle C Martin Mona M Weiss Dana D

Journal of patient-reported outcomes 20201104 1

Within current literature and practice, the category of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures has been expanded into the broader category of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), which includes the subcategory of PRO, as well as clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO), observer-reported outcome (ObsRO), and performance outcome (PerfO) measure subcategories. However, despite this conceptual expansion, recommendations associated with translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of COAs ...[more]

PMID: 33146755

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This article addresses patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based follow-up used as a substitute for regularly scheduled follow-ups. In PRO-based follow-up, patients' PRO data filled in by the patients at home are used by clinicians as a decision aid to identify those who need clinical attention based on an automated PRO algorithm, clinical attention being either a phone call or a physical consultation. A physical consultation in the outpatient clinic prompted by the patient's PRO is termed a "PRO consultation." In this multi-perspective qualitative study, we explored the influence of patients' self-reported data on patient-clinician interaction during PRO consultations in epilepsy outpatient clinics. Interpretive description was the methodological approach, applying data from participant observations, informal interviews with clinicians, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. RESULTS:We found that application and deliberate use of patients' PRO measures can affect patient-clinician interaction, promoting patient involvement in terms of improved communication and increased patient activation. These findings reflect the general patterns that have been reported in the literature. In addition, we found that PRO measures also may induce unmet expectations among some patients that can have a negative effect on patients' experiences of the interaction and their follow-up experience in general. We extracted two thematic patterns that represent PRO measures' potential for patient involvement in the patient-clinician interaction. The first pattern represents enablers, and the second pattern represents barriers for PRO measures to affect patient involvement. CONCLUSIONS:Applying PRO measures in clinical practice does not automatically enhance the patient-clinician interaction. To strengthen the benefits of PRO measures, the following supplementary clinical initiatives are suggested: summarizing and reporting the PRO measures back to the patient, considering carefully which PRO measures to include, training clinicians and assuring that the patients' introduction to PRO-based follow-up clarifies expectations.

Project description:BackgroundIn this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.ResultsPROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.ConclusionsThis paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health-related Quality of Life (HrQoL) is a multidimensional measure, which has gained clinical and social relevance. Implementation of a patient-centred approach to both clinical research and care settings, has increased the recognition of patient and/or observer reported outcome measures (PROMs or ObsROMs) as informative and reliable tools for HrQoL assessment. Inherited Metabolic Diseases (IMDs) are a group of heterogeneous conditions with phenotypes ranging from mild to severe and mostly lacking effective therapies. Consequently, HrQoL evaluation is particularly relevant. OBJECTIVES:We aimed to: (1) identify patient and/or caregiver-reported HrQoL instruments used among IMDs; (2) identify the main results of the application of each HrQoL tool and (3) evaluate the main limitations of HrQoL instruments and study design/methodology in IMDs. METHODS:A scoping review was conducted using methods outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. Additionally, we critically analysed each article to identify the HrQoL study drawbacks. RESULTS:Of the 1954 studies identified, 131 addressed HrQoL of IMDs patients using PROMs and/or ObsROMs, both in observational or interventional studies. In total, we identified 32 HrQoL instruments destined to self- or proxy-completion; only 2% were disease-specific. Multiple tools (both generic and disease-specific) proved to be responsive to changes in HrQoL; the SF-36 and PedsQL questionnaires were the most frequently used in the adult and pediatric populations, respectively. Furthermore, proxy data often demonstrated to be a reliable approach complementing self-reported HrQoL scores. Nevertheless, numerous limitations were identified especially due to the rarity of these conditions. CONCLUSIONS:HrQoL is still not frequently assessed in IMDs. However, our results show successful examples of the use of patient-reported HrQoL instruments in this field. The importance of HrQoL measurement for clinical research and therapy development, incites to further research in HrQoL PROMs' and ObsROMs' creation and validation in IMDs.

Dataset Information

Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer-reported outcome, and performance outcome measures.

Publications

Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer-reported outcome, and performance outcome measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets