Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Focusing clinical investigations on outcomes that are meaningful from an end-user perspective is central in clinical research, particularly in chronic disorders such as Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, little is known about how end-users such as people with PD (PwPD) and health care professionals (HCPs) view and prioritize therapeutic outcomes.
To compare the perspectives of PwPD and HCPs regarding prioritized areas for outcome measurement in clinical PD trials.
Concept mapping was used to identify prioritized outcomes (statements) through focus groups (n = 27; 12 PwPD, 12 HCPs, three researchers), statement sorting and importance rating (n = 38; 19 PwPD, 19 HCPs), followed by quantitative (multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, procrustes analysis) and qualitative analysis.
Sorting of 99 statements by PwPD and HCPs yielded 2D maps (PwPD/HCPs stress values, 0.31/0.21) with eight clusters per group. The correlation between raw sorting data of PwPD and HCPs was 0.80, and there was a significant concordance (m 12 = 0.53; P < 0.001; i.e., r = 0.68) between the spatial arrangements in their respective maps. Qualitatively, the maps from the two groups represented partially different perspectives. There were no significant differences between PwPD and HCP item importance ratings.
Although similarities dominated, there were differences in how the relationships between items were perceived by the two groups, emanating from different perspectives, i.e., the clinical biomedical (“disease”) versus the lived experience (“illness”). This study illustrates the clinical importance of attention to the perspective of PwPD; taking this into account is likely to provide evidence from clinical investigations that are meaningful and interpretable for end-users.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
World Health Organization, and World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organization.
EU Joint Programme—Neurodegenerative Disease Research. (2012). JPND research strategy— Tackling the challenge of Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases in Europe. UK Medical Research Council. Available from: http://www.neurodegenerationresearch.eu/fileadmin/Documents/2012/SRA-related/JPND_brochure_final_Hyperlink_2012.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
Nisenzon, A. N., Robinson, M. E., Bowers, D., Banou, E., Malaty, I., & Okun, M. S. (2011). Measurement of patient-centered outcomes in Parkinson’s disease: What do patients really want from their treatment? Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 17(2), 89–94. CrossRef
Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Trochim, W. M. K. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 1–16. CrossRef
Sturrock, K., & Rocha, J. (2000). A multidimensional scaling stress evaluation table. Field Methods, 12(1), 49–60. CrossRef
Trochim, W. M. K. (1993). The reliability of concept mapping. In Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association, Dallas, TX, November 6, 1993.
Jackson, D. A. (1995). PROTEST: A PROcrustean randomization TEST of community environment concordance. Ecoscience, 2(3), 297–303.
Peres-Neto, P. R., & Jackson, D. A. (2001). How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia, 129, 169–178. CrossRef
Schneider, J. W., & Borlund, P. (2007). Matrix comparison, part 2: Measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results by use of the Mantel and Procrustes statistics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(11), 1596–1609. CrossRef
Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009). Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: The role of new psychometric methods. Health Technology Assessment, 13(12), iii, ix–x, 1–177.
Hobart, J., Cano, S., Baron, R., Thompson, A., Schwid, S., Zajicek, J., et al. (2013). Achieving valid patient-reported outcomes measurement: A lesson from fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 19(13), 1773–1783. doi: 10.1177/1352458513483378.
Den Oudsten, B. L., Van Heck, G. L., & De Vries, J. (2007). The suitability of patient-based measures in the field of Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review. Movement Disorders, 22(10), 1390–1401. CrossRef
Brown, C. A., Cheng, E. M., Hays, R. D., Vassar, S. D., & Vickrey, B. G. (2009). SF-36 includes less Parkinson’s disease (PD)-targeted content but is more responsive to change than two PD-targeted health-related quality of life measures. Quality of Life Research, 18(9), 1219–1237. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modelling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Conceptualizing and prioritizing clinical trial outcomes from the perspectives of people with Parkinson’s disease versus health care professionals: a concept mapping study
Catharina Sjödahl Hammarlund
Maria H. Nilsson
Scott R. Rosas
- Springer International Publishing
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta