Dataset Information

Evaluation of the content validity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments developed for use with individuals with phakic presbyopia, including the Near Activity Visual Questionnaire-presbyopia (NAVQ-P) and the near vision correction independence (NVCI) instrument

ABSTRACT:

Background

Presbyopia is the age-related deterioration in the ability to focus on close objects. In order to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to assess near vision functioning, the Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) was adapted to incorporate modern technology (e.g. smartphones) and to be appropriate for use in phakic presbyopia, leading to the development of the NAVQ-Presbyopia (NAVQ-P). Additional single-item instruments of near vision correction independence (NVCI), correction preference (NVCP), and vision satisfaction (NVS) were also developed. The study aimed to evaluate the content validity of the NAVQ-P and additional instruments in individuals with phakic presbyopia.

Methods

Participants in the US (n = 15), Germany (n = 10) and France (n = 10) took part in face-to-face, qualitative, cognitive debriefing interviews. Seven healthcare professionals (HCPs) were also interviewed to assess the clinical relevance of the PRO instruments. Interviews started with open-ended qualitative concept elicitation questioning; participants then completed the PRO instruments on an electronic tablet using a “think-aloud” process and were asked about their understanding and relevance of each item, instruction, response scale and recall period. Interviews were conducted in two rounds allowing for modifications between rounds.

Results

The participants interpreted the majority of the PRO instruments and recall period correctly and consistently. They were able to select an appropriate response option without difficulty. Minor modifications were made to the PRO instruments based on interview findings. Instruction/item wording was modified to include reference to use of a magnifying glass, in addition to glasses and contact lenses. Two items were added to assess difficulty with precision tasks (e.g. sewing) and taking longer to adjust from distance to near vision. HCPs confirmed the relevance of the concepts being measured for presbyopia and recommended the addition of an item assessing contrast sensitivity.

Conclusions

Developed in accordance with the FDA PRO Guidance, the findings support content validity of the NAVQ-P as a suitable, well-understood instrument of relevant near vision functioning concepts in individuals with phakic presbyopia. The NVCI and additional PRO instruments are appropriate to assess near vision correction independence, correction preference, and vision satisfaction. Future work will assess the psychometric properties of the NAVQ-P and additional PRO instruments.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-021-00379-x.

SUBMITTER: Bentley S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8542063 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPresbyopia is a progressive condition that reduces the eye's ability to focus on near objects with increasing age. After a systematic literature review identified no existing presbyopia-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments meeting regulatory guidance, a new PRO instrument, the Near Vision Presbyopia Task-based Questionnaire (NVPTQ), was developed.ResultsTo explore the patient experience with presbyopia, concept elicitation interviews were conducted with 20 presbyopic participants. The most frequently reported impacts were difficulty with reading menus/books/newspapers/magazines, reading on a cell phone/caller ID, and reading small print. Based on these results, a task-based PRO instrument (the NVPTQ) was developed instructing participants to complete four near-vision, paper-based reading tasks (book, newspaper, nutrition label, menu) under standardized settings, and subsequently assess their vision-related reading ability and associated satisfaction. The draft NVPTQ was cognitively debriefed with a sample of 20 presbyopes, which demonstrated that most participants interpreted the items as intended and endorsed the relevance of the concepts being assessed. After the qualitative research, the draft instrument was psychometrically tested using data from a Phase 2 study. Based on item-level analyses, all items in the NVPTQ demonstrated expected response option patterns and lacked substantial floor or ceiling effects. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the NVPTQ Performance and Satisfaction domain scores were assessed. All domains scores had large Cronbach's coefficient α values and good test-retest statistics, indicating that the scores are internally consistent and produce stable values over time. The pattern of correlations with a concurrent measure of visual functioning (National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25) demonstrated that the NVPTQ domain scores were related to an alternative assessment of near-vision activities. The NVPTQ domain scores were able to distinguish between groups that were known to differ on the clinical outcome of uncorrected near visual acuity, supporting the construct validity of these scores. The NVPTQ domain scores showed evidence of responsiveness to change by being able to distinguish between groups defined as improved and not improved based on patient-reported and clinical outcomes.ConclusionsThis research has resulted in a content-valid and psychometrically sound instrument designed to evaluate vision-related reading ability and satisfaction with vision-related reading ability.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02780115. Registered 23 May 2016, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02780115?term=NCT02780115&draw=2&rank=1.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a need for a survey instrument to measure arthralgia (joint pain) that has been psychometrically validated in the context of existing reference instruments. We developed the 16-item Patient-Reported Arthralgia Inventory (PRAI) to measure arthralgia severity in 16 joints, in the context of a longitudinal cohort study to assess aromatase inhibitor-associated arthralgia in breast cancer survivors and arthralgia in postmenopausal women without breast cancer. We sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of the PRAI instrument in these populations, as well as to examine the relationship of patient-reported morning stiffness and arthralgia.MethodsWe administered the PRAI on paper in 294 women (94 initiating aromatase inhibitor therapy and 200 postmenopausal women without breast cancer) at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 52, as well as once in 36 women who had taken but were no longer taking aromatase inhibitor therapy.ResultsCronbach's alpha was 0.9 for internal consistency of the PRAI. Intraclass correlation coefficients of test-retest reliability were in the range of 0.87-0.96 over repeated PRAI administrations; arthralgia severity was higher in the non-cancer group at baseline than at subsequent assessments. Women with joint comorbidities tended to have higher PRAI scores than those without (estimated difference in mean scores: -0.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.5, -0.2; P<0.001). The PRAI was highly correlated with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Subscale item "I have pain in my joints" (reference instrument; Spearman r range: 0.76-0.82). Greater arthralgia severity on the PRAI was also related to decreased physical function (r=-0.47, 95% CI -0.55, -0.37; P<0.001), higher pain interference (r=0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.72; P<0.001), less active performance status (estimated difference in location (-0.6, 95% CI -0.9, -0.4; P<0.001), and increased morning stiffness duration (r=0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.69; P<0.0001).ConclusionWe conclude that the psychometric properties of the PRAI are satisfactory for measuring arthralgia severity.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate the progression of near vision loss and the cumulative incidence of near vision impairment (NVI) 6 years after initial examination of an urban Chinese cohort.DesignPopulation-based, prospective cohort study.ParticipantsPeople aged ≥35 years examined at baseline in the Yuexiu District of Guangzhou, China.MethodsParticipants examined at baseline were invited for 2-year and 6-year follow-up examinations in 2010 and 2014, respectively. Examinations included noncycloplegic autorefraction and binocular near visual acuity (NVA) with and without current near correction measured at 40 cm using a LogMAR ETDRS near vision tumbling E chart. Those with uncorrected binocular NVA (UCNVA) ≤20/40 underwent subjective refraction to obtain best-corrected binocular NVA (BCNVA).Main outcome measuresChange in UCNVA between baseline and 2014 follow-up examinations and the 6-year cumulative incidence of vision impairment based on 3 definitions: NVA ≤20/40, ≤20/50, and ≤20/63.ResultsAmong the 1817 baseline participants, 1595 (87.8%) were reexamined in 2010 and 1427 (78.5%) in 2014. Mean vision loss between baseline and the 2014 follow-up was 1.54 (±1.74) lines of UCNVA. Vision loss was associated with age 80 years or older, less education, and better baseline UCNVA. The 6-year cumulative incidence of uncorrected binocular NVI (UCNVI) across the 3 vision impairment definitions was 55.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.1%-64.3%), 51.3% (95% CI, 44.0%-58.7%), and 42.4% (95% CI, 35.5%-49.3%), respectively. With best-corrected binocular NVI (BCNVI), incidence was 6.89% (95% CI, 4.28%-9.50%), 5.17% (95% CI, 2.89%-7.44%), and 2.62% (95% CI, 1.11%-4.12%), respectively. A higher incidence of UCNVI was associated with worse baseline UCNVA for all 3 impairment definitions. Similarly, incidence of BCNVI was associated with worse baseline BCNVA, but also with older age and education at the primary level or less. Gender was not significant for either UCNVI or BCNVI.ConclusionsApproximately half of those aged 35 years or older develop UCNVI in 6 years, the overwhelming majority of whom can be corrected with spectacles. Cost-effective strategies to provide spectacles to this at-risk population remains an issue requiring further study.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the 'Patient Enablement Instrument', we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test-retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registrationNot applicable.