nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.10.2013

ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research

verfasst von: Bryce B. Reeve, Kathleen W. Wyrwich, Albert W. Wu, Galina Velikova, Caroline B. Terwee, Claire F. Snyder, Carolyn Schwartz, Dennis A. Revicki, Carol M. Moinpour, Lori D. McLeod, Jessica C. Lyons, William R. Lenderking, Pamela S. Hinds, Ron D. Hays, Joanne Greenhalgh, Richard Gershon, David Feeny, Peter M. Fayers, David Cella, Michael Brundage, Sara Ahmed, Neil K. Aaronson, Zeeshan Butt

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 8/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

An essential aspect of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the integration of patient perspectives and experiences with clinical data to evaluate interventions. Thus, PCOR and CER require capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data appropriately to inform research, healthcare delivery, and policy. This initiative’s goal was to identify minimum standards for the design and selection of a PRO measure for use in PCOR and CER.

Methods

We performed a literature review to find existing guidelines for the selection of PRO measures. We also conducted an online survey of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) membership to solicit input on PRO standards. A standard was designated as “recommended” when >50 % respondents endorsed it as “required as a minimum standard.”

Results

The literature review identified 387 articles. Survey response rate was 120 of 506 ISOQOL members. The respondents had an average of 15 years experience in PRO research, and 89 % felt competent or very competent providing feedback. Final recommendations for PRO measure standards included: documentation of the conceptual and measurement model; evidence for reliability, validity (content validity, construct validity, responsiveness); interpretability of scores; quality translation, and acceptable patient and investigator burden.

Conclusion

The development of these minimum measurement standards is intended to promote the appropriate use of PRO measures to inform PCOR and CER, which in turn can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare delivery. A next step is to expand these minimum standards to identify best practices for selecting decision-relevant PRO measures.

Nächster Artikel Psychometric properties of a computerized adaptive test for assessing mobility in older adults using novel video-animation technology

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Guidance for industry. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM071975.pdf. Accessed November 26, 2011.

Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205.CrossRef

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2006). Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement INstruments. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 2. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-2.PubMedCrossRef

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.PubMedCrossRef

Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., Elliott, T. E., Greenhalgh, J., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2011). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x.

Basch, E. M., Reeve, B. B., Mitchell, S. A., Clauser, S. B., Minasian, L., Sit, L., et al. (2011). Electronic toxicity monitoring and patient-reported outcomes. Cancer Journal, 17(4), 231–234. doi:10.1097/PPO.0b013e31822c28b3.CrossRef

Revicki, D. A., Gnanasakthy, A., & Weinfurt, K. (2007). Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims: The PRO Evidence Dossier. Quality of Life Research, 16(4), 717–723. doi:10.1007/s11136-006-9153-5.PubMedCrossRef

Schunemann, H. J., Akl, E. A., & Guyatt, G. H. (2006). Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: The clinician’s perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 62. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-62.PubMedCrossRef

Deyo, R. A., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Medical Care, 27(3 Suppl), S254–S268.PubMedCrossRef

10.

International Society for Quality of Life Research. http://www.isoqol.org/. Accessed July 30, 2012.

11.

Guyatt, G., & Schunemann, H. (2007). How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Quality of Life Research, 16(7), 1097–1105. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9223-3.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Lipscomb, J., Donaldson, M. S., Arora, N. K., Brown, M. L., Clauser, S. B., Potosky, A. L., et al. (2004). Cancer outcomes research. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs (33), 178–197. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgh039.

14.

US Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute http://www.pcori.org. Accessed 26 November, 2011.

15.

Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, I. (2012). Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: The PCORI perspective. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(15), 1636–1640. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.466.CrossRef

16.

Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & de Vet, H. C. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1115–1123. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Qualtrics Labs Inc. Why choose qualtrics survey software? https://www.qualtrics.com/why-survey-software. Accessed November 26, 2011.

18.

US Food and Drug Administration. (2010). Qualification process for drug development tools. Draft Guidance for Industry. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM230597.pdf. Accessed November 26, 2011.

19.

Erickson, P., Willke, R., & Burke, L. (2009). A concept taxonomy and an instrument hierarchy: Tools for establishing and evaluating the conceptual framework of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument as applied to product labeling claims. Value in Health, 12(8), 1158–1167. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00609.x.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Powers, J. H., Scott, J. A., Rock, E. P., Dawisha, S., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value in Health, 10(Suppl 2), S125–S137. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00275.x.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Angst, F. (2011). The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 152; author reply 152. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-152.

22.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Gibbons, E., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments) checklist. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 82. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-82.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 22. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-22.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651–657. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Johnson, C., Aaronson, N., Blazeby, J. M., Bottomley, A., Fayers, P., Koller, M., et al. (2011). EORTC Quality of life group: Guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. http://groups.eortc.be/qol/sites/default/files/archives/guidelines_for_developing_questionnaire-_final.pdf. Accessed November 26, 2011.

27.

Cella, D. (1997). Manual of the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) measurement system. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

28.

Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.x.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2), 94–104. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., Leidy, N. K., Patrick, D. L., & Petrie, C. D. (2009). Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value in Health, 12(8), 1075–1083. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00603.x.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Wild, D., Eremenco, S., Mear, I., Martin, M., Houchin, C., Gawlicki, M., et al. (2009). Multinational trials-recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: the ISPOR patient-reported outcomes translation and linguistic validation good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 430–440. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00471.x.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing of the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1998). Standards for educational and psychological testing Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

33.

Magasi, S., Ryan, G., Revicki, D., Lenderking, W., Hays, R. D., Brod, M., et al. (2011). Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9990-8.PubMed

34.

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Valderas, J. M., Ferrer, M., Mendivil, J., Garin, O., Rajmil, L., Herdman, M., et al. (2008). Development of EMPRO: A tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 11(4), 700–708. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00309.x.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Dewolf, L., Koller, M., Velikova, G., Johnson, C., Scott, N., & Bottomley, A. (2009). EORTC quality of life group: Translation procedure. http://groups.eortc.be/qol/sites/default/files/archives/translation_manual_2009.pdf. Accessed November 26, 2011.

37.

Hays, R. D., & Hadorn, D. (1992). Responsiveness to change: An aspect of validity, not a separate dimension. Quality of Life Research, 1(1), 73–75.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Wyrwich, K. W., Norquist, J. M., Lenderking, W. R., Acaster, S., & the Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life, R. (2012). Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 2012 Apr 17. [Epub ahead of print.]. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0175-x.

39.

Ahmed, S., Berzon, R. A., Revicki, D., Lenderking, W., Moinpour, C. M., Basch, E., et al. (2012). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectivenss research: Implications for clinical practice and healthcare policy. Medical Care, 50(12), 1060–1070.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

42.

Norquist, J. M., Girman, C., Fehnel, S., Demuro-Mercon, C., & Santanello, N. (2011). Choice of recall period for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: Criteria for consideration. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0003-8.PubMed

43.

Revicki, D. A., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Sloan, J. A., Lenderking, W. R., & Aaronson, N. K. (2006). Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 70. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-70.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Brozek, J. L., Guyatt, G. H., & Schunemann, H. J. (2006). How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 69. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-69.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Norman, G. R., Sridhar, F. G., Guyatt, G. H., & Walter, S. D. (2001). Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 39(10), 1039–1047.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Koller, M., Kantzer, V., Mear, I., Zarzar, K., Martin, M., Greimel, E., et al. (2012). The process of reconciliation: Evaluation of guidelines for translating quality-of-life questionnaires. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 12(2), 189–197. doi:10.1586/erp.11.102.CrossRef

47.

Jordan, J. E., Osborne, R. H., & Buchbinder, R. (2011). Critical appraisal of health literacy indices revealed variable underlying constructs, narrow content and psychometric weaknesses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 366–379. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.005.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Acquadro, C., Conway, K., Hareendran, A., & Aaronson, N. (2008). Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value in Health, 11(3), 509–521. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00292.x.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(5), 395–407.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., Hays, R. D., & Mayo, F. D. A. P.-R. O. C. M. G. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value in Health, 10(Suppl 2), S94–S105. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.x.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Hays, R. D., & Woolley, J. M. (2000). The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? PharmacoEconomics, 18(5), 419–423.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Kemmler, G., Zabernigg, A., Gattringer, K., Rumpold, G., Giesinger, J., Sperner-Unterweger, B., et al. (2010). A new approach to combining clinical relevance and statistical significance for evaluation of quality of life changes in the individual patient. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(2), 171–179. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.016.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Kottner, J., Audige, L., Brorson, S., Donner, A., Gajewski, B. J., Hrobjartsson, A., et al. (2011). Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(1), 96–106. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Schmidt, S., & Bullinger, M. (2003). Current issues in cross-cultural quality of life instrument development. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(4 Suppl 2), S29–S34. doi:10.1053/apmr.2003.50244.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Sprangers, M. A., Moinpour, C. M., Moynihan, T. J., Patrick, D. L., Revicki, D. A., & Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. (2002). Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A users’ guide for clinicians. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(6), 561–571. doi:10.4065/77.6.561.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Turner, R. R., Quittner, A. L., Parasuraman, B. M., Kallich, J. D., Cleeland, C. S., & Mayo, F. D. A. P.-R. O. C. M. G. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Instrument development and selection issues. Value in Health, 10(Suppl 2), S86–S93. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00271.x.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Schunemann, H. J., & Guyatt, G. H. (2005). Commentary–goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Services Research, 40(2), 593–597. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00374.x.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Schunemann, H. J., Puhan, M., Goldstein, R., Jaeschke, R., & Guyatt, G. H. (2005). Measurement properties and interpretability of the Chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ). Copd, 2(1), 81–89.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research
verfasst von: Bryce B. Reeve
Kathleen W. Wyrwich
Albert W. Wu
Galina Velikova
Caroline B. Terwee
Claire F. Snyder
Carolyn Schwartz
Dennis A. Revicki
Carol M. Moinpour
Lori D. McLeod
Jessica C. Lyons
William R. Lenderking
Pamela S. Hinds
Ron D. Hays
Joanne Greenhalgh
Richard Gershon
David Feeny
Peter M. Fayers
David Cella
Michael Brundage
Sara Ahmed
Neil K. Aaronson
Zeeshan Butt
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2013
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 8/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2013

Performance of the EORTC questionnaire for the assessment of quality of life in head and neck cancer patients EORTC QLQ-H&N35: a methodological review

Family sense of coherence and quality of life

Explaining quality of life of older people in the Netherlands using a multidimensional assessment of frailty

Psychometric properties of a computerized adaptive test for assessing mobility in older adults using novel video-animation technology

Well-being in mothers of children with congenital heart defects: a 3-year follow-up

Cognitive testing of the WHOQOL-BREF Bangladesh tool in a northern rural Bangladeshi population with lymphatic filariasis

Premium Partner