scholarly journals Development and content validity of new patient-reported outcome questionnaires to assess the signs and symptoms and impact of atopic dermatitis: the Atopic Dermatitis Symptom Scale (ADerm-SS) and the Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale (ADerm-IS)

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 1139-1148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Foley ◽  
Namita Tundia ◽  
Eric Simpson ◽  
Henrique D. Teixeira ◽  
Leighann Litcher-Kelly ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 386-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Davies ◽  
R. Macefield ◽  
K. Avery ◽  
J. M. Blazeby ◽  
S. Potter

Abstract Background Breast reconstruction (BR) is performed to improve outcomes for patients undergoing mastectomy. A recently developed core outcome set for BR includes six patient-reported outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future studies. It is vital that any instrument used to measure these outcomes as part of a core measurement set be robustly developed and validated so data are reliable and accurate. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the development and measurement properties of existing BR patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform instrument selection for future studies. Methods A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of development and validation studies of BR PROMs was conducted to assess their measurement properties. PROMs with adequate content validity were assessed using three steps: (1) the methodological quality of each identified study was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist; (2) criteria were applied for assessing good measurement properties; and (3) evidence was summarized and the quality of evidence assessed using a modified GRADE approach. Results Fourteen articles reported the development and measurement properties of six PROMs. Of these, only three (BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23) were considered to have adequate content validity and proceeded to full evaluation. This showed that all three PROMs had been robustly developed and validated and demonstrated adequate quality. Conclusions BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23 have been well-developed and demonstrate adequate measurement properties. Work with key stakeholders is now needed to generate consensus regarding which PROM should be recommended for inclusion in a core measurement set.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Lloyd ◽  
Emily Callander ◽  
Amalia Karahalios ◽  
Lucy Desmond ◽  
Harin Karunajeewa

IntroductionPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a vital component of patient-centred care. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant contributor to morbidity, mortality and health service costs globally, but there is a lack of consensus regarding PROMs for this condition.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration for studies, both interventional and observational, of adult recovery from CAP that applied at least one validated PROM instrument and were published before 31 December 2017. The full text of included studies was examined and data collected on study design, PROM instruments applied, constructs examined and the demographic characteristics of the populations measured. For all CAP-specific PROM instruments identified, content validity was assessed using the COnsensus based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines (COSMIN).ResultsForty-two articles met the inclusion criteria and applied a total of 17 different PROM instruments including five (30%) classified as CAP specific, six (35%) as generic and six (35%) that measured functional performance or were specific to another disease. The 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) was the most commonly used instrument (15 articles). Only one of 11 (9%) patient cohorts assessed using a CAP-specific instrument had a mean age ≥70 years. The CAP-Sym and CAP-BIQ questionnaires had sufficient content validity, though the quality of evidence for all CAP-specific instruments was rated as very low to low.DiscussionPROM instruments used to measure recovery from CAP are inconsistent in constructs measured and have frequently been developed and validated in highly selective patient samples that are not fully representative of the hospitalised CAP population. The overall content validity of all available CAP-specific instruments is unclear, particularly in the context of elderly hospitalised populations. Based on current evidence, generic health instruments are likely to be of greater value for measuring recovery from CAP in this group.


2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 1616-1623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith M Sonder ◽  
Lisanne J Balk ◽  
Libertje VAE Bosma ◽  
Chris H Polman ◽  
Bernard MJ Uitdehaag

Background: Patient-reported outcome scales (PROs) are useful in monitoring changes in multiple sclerosis (MS) over time. Although these scales are reliable and valid measures in longitudinal studies in MS patients, it is unknown what the impact is when obtaining longitudinal data from proxies. Objective: The objective of this paper is to compare longitudinal changes in patient and proxy responses on PROs assessing physical impact of MS and walking ability. Methods: In a prospective observational study, data on the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29 physical) and Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS-12) were obtained from 137 patient-proxy couples at baseline and at two-year follow-up. Demographic and disease-related variables explaining agreement or disagreement between patients and proxies were investigated using linear regression analyses. Results: Full agreement was found in 56% (MSIS) and 62% (MSWS) of the patient-proxy couples. Complete disagreement was very rare for both scales (2% MSIS, 5% MSWS). When patients were more positive than proxies, a higher age, longer disease duration, longer patient-proxy relationship and increased levels of depression, anxiety and caregiver burden in proxies were observed. Conclusion: In the majority of the patient-proxy couples there was agreement. Proxies can serve as a valuable source of information, but caution remains essential when using scores from proxies.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 253-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer E. Flythe ◽  
Adeline Dorough ◽  
Julia H. Narendra ◽  
Rebecca L. Wingard ◽  
Lorien S. Dalrymple ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document