scholarly journals Testing the Responsiveness of and Defining Minimal Important Difference (MID) Values for the CARe Burn Scales: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Assess Quality of Life for Children and Young People Affected by Burn Injuries, and Their Parents/Caregivers

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-280
Author(s):  
Catrin Griffiths ◽  
Philippa Tollow ◽  
Danielle Cox ◽  
Paul White ◽  
Timothy Pickles ◽  
...  

The CARe Burn Scales are a portfolio of burn-specific PROMs for people affected by burns, including a Child Form (for children < 8 years (parent-proxy)), a Young Person Form (for young people aged 8–17 years), an Adult Form, and a Parent Form (for parents/carers of children aged 0–17 years). This study aimed to determine the responsiveness and minimal important difference (MID) values of the three scales developed for use in paediatric burn services and research. Participants were recruited by 15 UK Burn Services. Participants completed the appropriate CARe Burn Scale and a set of appropriate comparison validated measures, at three time points: 4 weeks (T1), 3 months (T2) and 6 months (T3) post-burn injury. Spearman’s correlation analysis and effect sizes based on Cohen’s d thresholds were reported and MID values were calculated. At baseline, 250 participants completed the Child Form, 69 completed the Young Person Form, and 320 completed the Parent Form. A total of 85–92% of participants were retained at follow up. The tested CARe Burn Scales were all responsive to change over time. MID values were created for all subscales and ranged from 2 to 11 for the Child Form, 3 to 14 for the Young Person Form and 3 to 10 for the Parent Form. The CARe Burn Scales for children, young people and parents are responsive to change over time. The scales are freely available for clinical and research use.

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. W. Wyrwich ◽  
◽  
J. M. Norquist ◽  
W. R. Lenderking ◽  
S. Acaster

Author(s):  
Titus A. A. Beentjes ◽  
Steven Teerenstra ◽  
Hester Vermeulen ◽  
Peter J. J. Goossens ◽  
Maria W. G. Nijhuis-van der Sanden ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Complementary interventions for persons with severe mental illness (SMI) focus on both personal recovery and illness self-management. This paper aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) associated with the most relevant and meaningful change in persons with SMI who attended the Illness Management and Recovery Programme (IMR). Methods The effect of the IMR was measured with PROMs concerning recovery, illness self-management, burden of symptoms and quality of life (QoL). From the QoL measures, an anchor was chosen based on the most statistically significant correlations with the PROMs. Then, we estimated the minimal important difference (MID) for all PROMs using an anchor-based method supported by distribution-based methods. The PROM with the highest outcome for effect score divided by MID (the effect/MID index) was considered to be a measure of the most relevant and meaningful change. Results All PROMs showed significant pre–post-effects. The QoL measure ‘General Health Perception (Rand-GHP)’ was identified as the anchor. Based on the anchor method, the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM) showed the highest effect/MID index, which was supported by the distribution-based methods. Because of the modifying gender covariate, we stratified the MID calculations. In most MIDs, the MHRM showed the highest effect/MID indexes. Conclusion Taking into account the low sample size and the gender covariate, we conclude that the MHRM was capable of showing the most relevant and meaningful change as a result of the IMR in persons with SMI.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 883-883
Author(s):  
A. Alunno ◽  
E. Mosor ◽  
T. Stamm ◽  
P. Studenic

Background:Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in clinical practice and research, it is unclear if these instruments adequately cover the perspective of young people (18-35 years) with inflammatory arthritis (IA). We recently performed focus groups on PROMs with 53 young IA patients from 4 European countries, but the perspective of these patients has never been explored on a large scale.Objectives:To explore personal experience, opinions and beliefs of young people with IA across Europe concerning PROMs content, characteristics and ways of administration in order to inform EULAR points to consider (PtC) for including the perspective of young patients with IA into PROMs.Methods:Based on the results of our previous qualitative study, a task force including patients, rheumatologists and health professionals developed an online survey. The survey covered personal experience, preferences and opinions concerning PROMs. After being pilot tested and revised accordingly, the survey was distributed through the EULAR people with arthritis and rheumatism in Europe (PARE), Young PARE networks and the Emerging EULAR Network (EMEUNET).Results:547 people (88% females) from 29 countries aged 18-35 years with a diagnosis of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, Still’s disease, psoriatic arthritis or spondyloarthritis completed the survey (Figure 1). Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported they never filled a PROM. A North-South and West-East Europe gradient was observed (30.4% vs 56.3% and 25.5% vs 58.8% respectively). Figure 2 outlines key findings of our survey. Among respondents having filled PROMs (n=313), two thirds perceived their access to PROM results useful for self-management of their health. Discomfort while filling PROMs was an issue for nearly half of the respondents, as questions were perceived as scaring or not relevant. This discomfort, the fear of judgement, or inadequate assessed time frames were major reasons for difficulties in translating the health experience into a rating scale. Still 75% use their own experience in the past as reference. Among several reasons, people scored differently from what they felt to emphasize how much better or worse they felt from previous assessment. Concerning preferences of numerical rating scales (NRS) or visual analogue scales (VAS) explored in all respondents regardless having ever filled in PROMs, those in favour of VAS mainly reasoned this by having more possibilities to select and those favouring NRS by better readability and interpretation. Maintaining a sitting position, preparing food, doing physical activity, intimacy and sleep problems were the items selected most frequently in the survey as in the qualitative study to be included in PROMs. The implementation of discussion on self-management, education/work and support possibilities at regular clinic visits was considered important by over 60% of responders. Overall, electronic capturing of PROMs was preferred over paper-based questionnaires (57% vs 13%).Conclusion:Our survey explored for the first time the personal experience and opinions of young people with IA concerning PROMs on a large scale and confirmed the results obtained in the qualitative study. This survey informed the EULAR PtC for including the perspective of young patients with IA into PROMs.References:[1] Mosor E et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71 (suppl 10)Disclosure of Interests:Alessia Alunno: None declared, Erika Mosor: None declared, Tanja Stamm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Paul Studenic Grant/research support from: Abbvie


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Titus Beentjes ◽  
Steven Teerenstra ◽  
Hester Vermeulen ◽  
Maria W.G. Nijhuis-van der Sanden ◽  
Betsie G.I. van Gaal ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Complementary interventions for persons with severe mental illness (SMI) provide broad strategies for recovery and illness self-management. It is not known which outcome measure can be considered to be relevant for persons with SMI. This knowledge can motivate a professional to offer and stimulate a person to participate in that intervention. This paper aimed to identify the outcome measures that determine the most relevant and meaningful change and capture the benefits of a complementary intervention. Methods: By using anchor-based and distribution-based methods, we estimated the minimal important difference (MID) to determine which outcome measure persons improved in beyond the MID to reflect a relevant change in pre-post effect of a complementary intervention, in casu the Illness Management and Recovery programme (IMR).Results: The anchor MID was based on the results of the measure Rand General Health Perception (Rand-GHP). On all MIDs, the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM) had the highest score on the effect compared to its MIDs, and also on all MIDs the MHRM had the highest percentages of participants that scored above the MID. Conclusion: The Rand-GHP is considered to be an excellent measure for investigating the MID as a result of an intervention. The results of our study can be used in shared decision-making processes to determine which intervention is suitable for a person with SMI. A person who desires a recovery outcome, as measured by the MHRM, can be recommended to do the IMR programme.


2020 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2020-318991
Author(s):  
Alexandra O Robertson ◽  
Valerija Tadić ◽  
Mario Cortina-Borja ◽  
Jugnoo Rahi

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo explore feasibility of using child/young person patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) routinely in practice, using vision-specific instruments and paediatric ophthalmology as the exemplar.MethodsParticipants comprised patients aged 8–17 years, with visual impairment or low vision (visual acuity of the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) worse than 0.3 in the better eye), attending the Department of Ophthalmology at Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK. All participants completed age-appropriate PROMs before attending their outpatient appointment. Half were randomly assigned to completion at home, with the choice of paper-and-pencil or electronic format. The other half were invited to complete PROMs during their hospital appointment, and randomly assigned to completion format. All participants completed a face-to-face survey exploring their attitudes and preferences. Analysis comprised survival analysis, and direct comparisons of proportions, with complementary qualitative data analysis.Results93 patients participated. 48 (98%) completing PROMs at home chose the paper-and-pencil format. Completion at home took longer than at hospital (median=20, vs 14 min, p<0.001). Visual acuity was associated with completion time (p=0.007) and missing data (p=0.03). Overall, 52 (60%) reported a preference for completion at home but there was no clear preference for format (37 (43%) preferred either format).ConclusionPROM completion at home ahead of hospital appointments may be preferable for collecting complete, high-quality datasets. Despite equipoise on preference for format, the majority of those completing at home chose the traditional paper-and-pencil format, despite impaired sight. These findings should inform implementation of child/young person PROMs into routine practice.


Author(s):  
Päivi K. Karjalainen ◽  
Nina K. Mattsson ◽  
Jyrki T. Jalkanen ◽  
Kari Nieminen ◽  
Anna-Maija Tolppanen

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis Patient-reported outcome measures are fundamental tools when assessing effectiveness of treatments. The challenge lies in the interpretation: which magnitude of change in score is meaningful for the patients? The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference in score that patients perceive as important. The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) represents the value of score beyond which patients consider themselves well. We aimed to determine the MID and PASS for Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6) in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. Methods We used data from 2704 POP surgeries from a prospective, population-based cohort. MID was determined with three anchor-based and one distribution-based method. PASS was defined using two different methods. Medians of the estimates were identified. Results The MID estimates with (1) mean change, (2) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, (3) 75th percentile, and (4) distribution-based method varied between 22.9–25.0 (median 24.2) points for PFDI-20 and 9.0–12.5 (median 11.3) for POPDI-6. The PASS cutoffs with (1) 75th percentile and (2) ROC curve method varied between 57.7–62.5 (median 60.0) for PFDI-20 and 16.7–17.7 (median 17.2) for POPDI-6. Conclusion A mean difference of 24 points in the PFDI-20 or 11 points in the POPDI-6 can be used as a clinically relevant difference between groups. Postoperative scores ≤ 60 for PFDI-20 and ≤ 17 for POPDI-6 signify acceptable symptom state.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 594-603
Author(s):  
Halina Flannery ◽  
Jenna Jacob

There is a growing drive to develop and implement patient-reported outcome measures within paediatric health services, particularly for young people living with chronic health conditions; however, there is little consensus on how best to do this in meaningful ways within psychological services working alongside medical teams. This reflective commentary considers some of the challenges of collecting psychological outcome measures in paediatric services and considers alternative approaches to making outcome measurement meaningful. All measures have their limitations; however, they become meaningless if they are not used in meaningful and considered ways with young people. Client-defined outcome measurement, such as goal-based outcome measures, alongside other types of measurement, can capture outcomes of meaning to young people living with chronic health conditions, and can enable them to feed into a shared decision-making process.


Nephrology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esmee M. Willik ◽  
Caroline B. Terwee ◽  
Willem Jan W. Bos ◽  
Marc H. Hemmelder ◽  
Kitty J. Jager ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document