nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

19.03.2016

Quantifying clinical change: discrepancies between patients’ and providers’ perspectives

verfasst von: Rachel P. Dreyer, Philip G. Jones, Shelby Kutty, John A. Spertus

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 9/2016

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Interpreting the clinical significance of changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critically important. The most commonly used approach is to anchor mean changes on PRO scores against a global assessment of change. Whether the assessor of global change should be patients or their physicians is unknown. We compared patients’ and physicians’ assessments of change over time to examine which was more aligned with patients’ changes in PRO measures.

Methods

A total of 459 chronic heart failure patients aged >30 years were enrolled from 13 US centers. Data were obtained by medical record abstraction, physical assessments, and patient interviews at a baseline clinic visit and 6 weeks later. Health status was measured with the disease-specific Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), and both patients and physicians completed a validated 15-level global assessment of change, ranging from large deterioration to large improvement.

Results

There was substantial variation between physicians/patients’ global assessment of clinical change (weighted kappa = 0.36, 95 % CI 0.28, 0.43). Overall, physician assessments were more strongly correlated with change on the KCCQ summary score than were patients’ assessments (physician R = 0.37, patient R = 0.29).

Conclusion

There was substantial variation between patients’ and physicians’ global assessment of 6-week change in heart failure status. Physician assessments of the importance of clinical changes were more strongly associated with changes in all domains of patient-reported health status, as assessed by the KCCQ, and may provide a more consistent method for defining the clinical importance of changes in patients’ health status.

Vorheriger Artikel Refining a Web-based goal assessment interview: item reduction based on reliability and predictive validity

Nächster Artikel Assessment of the psychometrics of a PROMIS item bank: self-efficacy for managing daily activities

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

Spertus, J. A. (2008). Evolving applications for patient-centered health status measures. Circulation, 118(20), 2103–2110.CrossRefPubMed

Deshpande, P. R., Rajan, S., Sudeepthi, B. L., & Abdul Nazir, C. P. (2011). Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2(4), 137–144.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gliklich, R. E., Dreyer, N., Leavy, MB (Eds.). (2014). Use of patient-reported outcomes in registries. In I. Prepared by the Outcome DEcIDE Center Outcome Sciences, a Quintiles & c. u. C. N. TO7 (Eds.), Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: A user’s guide (3rd ed., Vol. 5). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US).

Rumsfeld, J. S., Alexander, K. P., Goff, D. C, Jr, Graham, M. M., Ho, P. M., Masoudi, F. A., et al. (2013). Cardiovascular health: The importance of measuring patient-reported health status: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 127(22), 2233–2249.CrossRefPubMed

Flynn, K. E., Lin, L., Ellis, S. J., Russell, S. D., Spertus, J. A., Whellan, D. J., et al. (2009). Outcomes, health policy, and managed care: Relationships between patient-reported outcome measures and clinical measures in outpatients with heart failure. American Heart Journal, 158(4 Suppl), S64–S71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 4, 79.CrossRef

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2009). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2015.

Hewlett, S. A. (2003). Patients and clinicians have different perspectives on outcomes in arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(4), 877–879.PubMed

Cleeland, C. S., Sloan, J. A., & Group, A. O. (2010). Assessing the symptoms of cancer using patient-reported outcomes (ASCPRO): Searching for standards. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 39(6), 1077–1085.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Bushmakin, A. G., Cappelleri, J. C., Taylor-Stokes, G., Sayers, J., Sadosky, A., Carroll, D., et al. (2011). Relationship between patient-reported disease severity and other clinical outcomes in osteoarthritis: A European perspective. Journal of Medical Economics, 14(4), 381–389.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Pakhomov, S. V., Jacobsen, S. J., Chute, C. G., & Roger, V. L. (2008). Agreement between patient-reported symptoms and their documentation in the medical record. The American Journal of Managed Care, 14(8), 530–539.PubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Basch, E., Iasonos, A., McDonough, T., Barz, A., Culkin, A., Kris, M. G., et al. (2006). Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Results of a questionnaire-based study. The Lancet Oncology, 7(11), 903–909.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Spertus, J. (2014). Barriers to the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 7(1), 2–4.

14.

Spertus, J., Peterson, E., Conard, M. W., Heidenreich, P. A., Krumholz, H. M., Jones, P., et al. (2005). Monitoring clinical changes in patients with heart failure: A comparison of methods. American Heart Journal, 150(4), 707–715.CrossRefPubMed

15.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., Norman, G. R., & Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting, G. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371–383.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. E. (1994). Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47(1), 81–87.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Green, C. P., Porter, C. B., Bresnahan, D. R., & Spertus, J. A. (2000). Development and evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: A new health status measure for heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 35(5), 1245–1255.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ware, J, Jr, Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34(3), 220–233.CrossRefPubMed

21.

EuroQol. (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef

22.

Spertus, J. A., Tooley, J., Jones, P., Poston, C., Mahoney, E., Deedwania, P., et al. (2002). Expanding the outcomes in clinical trials of heart failure: The quality of life and economic components of EPHESUS (EPlerenone’s neuroHormonal Efficacy and SUrvival Study). American Heart Journal, 143(4), 636–642.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Berkanovic, E., Hurwicz, M. L., & Lachenbruch, P. A. (1995). Concordant and discrepant views of patients’ physical functioning. Arthritis Care and Research, 8(2), 94–101.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kwoh, C. K., O’Connor, G. T., Regan-Smith, M. G., Olmstead, E. M., Brown, L. A., Burnett, J. B., et al. (1992). Concordance between clinician and patient assessment of physical and mental health status. Journal of Rheumatology, 19(7), 1031–1037.PubMed

26.

Neville, C., Clarke, A. E., Joseph, L., Belisle, P., Ferland, D., & Fortin, P. R. (2000). Learning from discordance in patient and physician global assessments of systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity. Journal of Rheumatology, 27(3), 675–679.PubMed

27.

Hidding, A., van Santen, M., De Klerk, E., Gielen, X., Boers, M., Geenen, R., et al. (1994). Comparison between self-report measures and clinical observations of functional disability in ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. Journal of Rheumatology, 21(5), 818–823.PubMed

28.

Jacobs, J. W., Oosterveld, F. G., Deuxbouts, N., Rasker, J. J., Taal, E., Dequeker, J., et al. (1992). Opinions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis about their own functional capacity: How valid is it? Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 51(6), 765–768.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Evangelou, E., Tsianos, G., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Doctors’ versus patients’ global assessments of treatment effectiveness: Empirical survey of diverse treatments in clinical trials. BMJ, 336(7656), 1287–1290.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Spertus, J. (2008). Assessing patients’ improvement in clinical trials. BMJ, 336(7656), 1258–1259.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Kamper, S. J., Maher, C. G., & Mackay, G. (2009). Global rating of change scales: A review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy, 17(3), 163–170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Quantifying clinical change: discrepancies between patients’ and providers’ perspectives
verfasst von: Rachel P. Dreyer
Philip G. Jones
Shelby Kutty
John A. Spertus
Publikationsdatum: 19.03.2016
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 9/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1267-9

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 9/2016

Quality of life in older individuals with joint contractures in geriatric care settings

Erratum to: The internal and external responsiveness of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and Short Form-12 Health Survey version 2 (SF-12 v2) in patients with prostate cancer

Trajectories of quality of life in patients with traumatic limb injury: a 2-year follow-up study

Validation of the psychometrics properties of a French quality of life questionnaire among a cohort of renal transplant recipients less than one year

Erratum to: Advantages and psychometric validation of proximal intensive assessments of patient-reported outcomes collected in daily life

Refining a Web-based goal assessment interview: item reduction based on reliability and predictive validity