Dataset Information

Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus) Instrument in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

ABSTRACT: Background:The inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus) is a patient-reported outcome data collection instrument assessing symptoms of viral respiratory tract infections across 8 body systems. This study evaluated the measurement properties of FLU-PRO Plus in a study enrolling individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods:Data from a prospective cohort study (EPICC) in US Military Health System beneficiaries evaluated for COVID-19 was utilized. Adults with symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with FLU-PRO Plus survey information within 1 week of symptom onset were included. Reliability of FLU-PRO Plus was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; 2 days' reproducibility). Known-groups validity was assessed using patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity. Patient report of return to usual health was used to assess responsiveness (day 1-6/7). Results:Two hundred twenty-six SARS-CoV-2-positive participants were included in the analysis. Reliability among those who reported no change in their symptoms from one day to the next was high for most domains (ICC range, 0.68-0.94 for day 1 to day 2). Construct validity was demonstrated by moderate to high correlation between the PGA rating of disease severity and domain and total scores (eg, total scores correlation: 0.69 [influenza-like illness severity], 0.69 [interference in daily activities], and -0.58 [physical health]). In addition, FLU-PRO Plus demonstrated good known-groups validity, with increasing domain and total scores observed with increasing severity ratings. Conclusions:FLU-PRO Plus performs well in measuring signs and symptoms in SARS-CoV-2 infection with excellent construct validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness to change. Standardized data collection instruments facilitate meta-analyses, vaccine effectiveness studies, and other COVID-19 research activities.

SUBMITTER: Richard SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8661080 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe inFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) measure is a daily diary assessing signs/symptoms of influenza across six body systems: Nose, Throat, Eyes, Chest/Respiratory, Gastrointestinal, Body/Systemic, developed and tested in adults with influenza.ObjectivesThis study tested the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of FLU-PRO scores in adults with influenza-like illness (ILI).MethodsData from the prospective, observational study used to develop and test the FLU-PRO in influenza virus positive patients were analyzed. Adults (≥18 years) presenting with influenza symptoms in outpatient settings in the US, UK, Mexico, and South America were enrolled, tested for influenza virus, and asked to complete the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14-days. Analyses were performed on data from patients testing negative. Reliability of the final, 32-item FLU-PRO was estimated using Cronbach's alpha (α; Day 1) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; 2-day reproducibility). Convergent and known-groups validity were assessed using patient global assessments of influenza severity (PGA). Patient report of return to usual health was used to assess responsiveness (Day 1-7).ResultsThe analytical sample included 220 ILI patients (mean age = 39.3, 64.1% female, 88.6% white). Sixty-one (28%) were hospitalized at some point in their illness. Internal consistency reliability (α) of FLU-PRO Total score was 0.90 and ranged from 0.72-0.86 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 1-2) was 0.64 for Total, ranging from 0.46-0.78 for domain scores. Day 1 FLU-PRO scores correlated (≥0.30) with the PGA (except Gastrointestinal) and were significantly different across PGA severity groups (Total: F = 81.7, p<0.001; subscales: F = 6.9-62.2; p<0.01). Mean score improvements Day 1-7 were significantly greater in patients reporting return to usual health compared with those who did not (p<0.05, Total and subscales, except Gastrointestinal and Eyes).ConclusionsResults suggest FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive in adults with influenza-like illness.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) scores for quantifying the presence and severity of influenza symptoms.MethodsAn observational prospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with influenza-like illness in the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and South America was conducted. Participants completed the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14 days. Item-level and factor analyses were used to remove items and determine factor structure. Reliability of the final tool was estimated using Cronbach α and intraclass correlation coefficients (2-day reliability). Convergent and known-groups validity and responsiveness were assessed using global assessments of influenza severity and return to usual health.ResultsOf the 536 patients enrolled, 221 influenza-positive subjects comprised the analytical sample. The mean age of the patients was 40.7 years, 60.2% were women, and 59.7% were white. The final 32-item measure has six factors/domains (nose, throat, eyes, chest/respiratory, gastrointestinal, and body/systemic), with a higher order factor representing symptom severity overall (comparative fit index = 0.92; root mean square error of approximation = 0.06). Cronbach α was high (total = 0.92; domain range = 0.71-0.87); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, day 1-day 2) was 0.83 for total scores and 0.57 to 0.79 for domains. Day 1 FLU-PRO domain and total scores were moderately to highly correlated (≥0.30) with Patient Global Rating of Flu Severity (except nose and throat). Consistent with known-groups validity, scores differentiated severity groups on the basis of global rating (total: F = 57.2, P < 0.001; domains: F = 8.9-67.5, P < 0.001). Subjects reporting return to usual health showed significantly greater (P < 0.05) FLU-PRO score improvement by day 7 than did those who did not, suggesting score responsiveness.ConclusionsResults suggest that FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive to change in influenza-positive adults.

Project description:BackgroundIn clinical studies involving a healthy volunteer human challenge model, a valid and reliable measure to assess the evolution of patient-reported symptom type and severity following viral exposure is necessary. This study examines the use of the InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary as a standardized measure of symptom severity in a healthy volunteer human challenge model.MethodsHealthy adults admitted to the NIH Clinical Center (Day - 1) underwent a 9-day inpatient quarantine after intranasal challenge with a wild-type influenza A/H1N1pdm virus (Day 0). Participants completed the 32-item FLU-PRO diary twice daily for 14 days to assess presence, severity, and duration of symptoms across six body systems. Secondary analyses included descriptive statistics to examine FLU-PRO scores over the course of illness and analysis of variance to compare scores on Day 3 post-challenge by presence of viral shedding, and pre-challenge hemagglutinin and neuraminidase inhibition (HAI and NAI) titers.ResultsAll but one subject (99%), who was lost to follow-up, completed twice daily FLU-PRO diaries on all study assessment days. FLU-PRO demonstrated that 61 of 65 subjects reported symptoms (Days: Median 5, Mean 6 ± 7), of whom 37 (61%) had viral shedding. Pre-challenge, 39 (64%) and 10 (16%) subjects had low (< 1:40) HAI and NAI titers, respectively. Nose, throat, body, and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms reached peak intensity at Day 3, followed by chest/respiratory and eye symptoms at Day 4. Subjects with viral shedding had higher mean FLU-PRO scores compared to those without, except for Eye and GI domains (p <0.05). Mean FLU-PRO scores were significantly higher for subjects with low NAI titer (p <0.05) across all domains. No significant differences were observed between HAI titer groups. FLU-PRO scores of the low HAI-low NAI group (n = 10) were significantly higher (more severe) than the other two groups (p < 0.05) (high HAI-high NAI (n = 22), low HAI-high NAI (n = 29)).ConclusionsThe FLU-PRO had high adherence and low respondent burden. It can be used to track symptom onset, intensity, duration, and recovery from influenza infection in clinical research. In this human challenge study, scores were responsive to change and distinguished known clinical subgroups.Trial registrationNCT01971255 First Registered October 2, 2013.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Measures that reflect patients' assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials. The methodological approach used in the pre-validation development of new instruments (item generation, item reduction and question formatting) should be robust and transparent. The totality of the content of existing PRO instruments for a specific condition provides a valuable resource (pool of items) that can be utilised to develop new instruments. Such 'top down' approaches are common, but the explicit pre-validation methods are often poorly reported. This paper presents a systematic and generalisable 5-step pre-validation PRO instrument methodology. METHODS:The method is illustrated using the example of the Aberdeen Glaucoma Questionnaire (AGQ). The five steps are: 1) Generation of a pool of items; 2) Item de-duplication (three phases); 3) Item reduction (two phases); 4) Assessment of the remaining items' content coverage against a pre-existing theoretical framework appropriate to the objectives of the instrument and the target population (e.g. ICF); and 5) qualitative exploration of the target populations' views of the new instrument and the items it contains. RESULTS:The AGQ 'item pool' contained 725 items. Three de-duplication phases resulted in reduction of 91, 225 and 48 items respectively. The item reduction phases discarded 70 items and 208 items respectively. The draft AGQ contained 83 items with good content coverage. The qualitative exploration ('think aloud' study) resulted in removal of a further 15 items and refinement to the wording of others. The resultant draft AGQ contained 68 items. CONCLUSIONS:This study presents a novel methodology for developing a PRO instrument, based on three sources: literature reporting what is important to patient; theoretically coherent framework; and patients' experience of completing the instrument. By systematically accounting for all items dropped after the item generation phase, our method ensures that the AGQ is developed in a transparent, replicable manner and is fit for validation. We recommend this method to enhance the likelihood that new PRO instruments will be appropriate to the research context in which they are used, acceptable to research participants and likely to generate valid data.

Dataset Information

Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus) Instrument in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets