A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Cardiovascular Disease-Specific Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments Part I: Instrument Development and Content Validity

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.04.001
{"title":"A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Cardiovascular Disease-Specific Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments Part I: Instrument Development and Content Validity","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.04.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have been commonly used to measure important patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials and practices. This study aimed at systematically identifying and assessing the content validity of CVD-specific HRQoL instruments in clinical studies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The research team searched Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and PubMed from inception to January 20, 2022. The research team included studies that reported the development and content validity for CVD-specific instruments. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments methods on evaluating content validity of PROs. Content analysis was used to categorize the items included in the instruments.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The research team found 69 studies reporting the content validity of 40 instruments specifically developed for CVD. Fourteen (35.0%) were rated “sufficient” with very low to moderate quality of evidence. For PRO development, all instruments were rated “doubtful” or “inadequate.” Twenty-eight (70.0%) instruments cover the core concepts of HRQoL.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The quality of development and content validity vary among existing CVD-specific instruments. The evidence on the content validity should be considered when choosing a HRQoL instrument in CVD clinical studies and health economic evaluations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524023313/pdfft?md5=a377122805b62a03b62264f4d9c7d66b&pid=1-s2.0-S1098301524023313-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524023313","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have been commonly used to measure important patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials and practices. This study aimed at systematically identifying and assessing the content validity of CVD-specific HRQoL instruments in clinical studies.

Methods

The research team searched Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and PubMed from inception to January 20, 2022. The research team included studies that reported the development and content validity for CVD-specific instruments. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments methods on evaluating content validity of PROs. Content analysis was used to categorize the items included in the instruments.

Results

The research team found 69 studies reporting the content validity of 40 instruments specifically developed for CVD. Fourteen (35.0%) were rated “sufficient” with very low to moderate quality of evidence. For PRO development, all instruments were rated “doubtful” or “inadequate.” Twenty-eight (70.0%) instruments cover the core concepts of HRQoL.

Conclusions

The quality of development and content validity vary among existing CVD-specific instruments. The evidence on the content validity should be considered when choosing a HRQoL instrument in CVD clinical studies and health economic evaluations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心血管疾病特定健康相关生活质量工具的系统回顾与质量评估》第一部分:工具开发与内容有效性。
目的心血管疾病(CVD)的健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)工具通常用于测量临床试验和实践中重要的患者报告结果(PROs)。本研究旨在系统识别和评估临床研究中针对心血管疾病的 HRQoL 工具的内容效度。方法:研究小组检索了从开始到 2022 年 1 月 20 日的《护理与联合健康文献累积索引》、Embase 和 PubMed。研究小组纳入了报告心血管疾病特异性工具的开发和内容效度的研究。两位审稿人采用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准独立评估了PROs内容效度的方法学质量。研究小组发现有 69 项研究报告了 40 种专门针对心血管疾病开发的工具的内容有效性。其中 14 项(35.0%)被评为 "充分",证据质量为极低至中等。对于PRO的开发,所有工具都被评为 "可疑 "或 "不足"。结论现有心血管疾病专用工具的开发质量和内容有效性各不相同。在心血管疾病临床研究和健康经济评估中选择 HRQoL 工具时,应考虑内容有效性方面的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
Analytical Methods for Comparing Uncontrolled Trials with External Controls from Real-World Data: a Systematic Literature Review and Comparison to European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Practice. Author Reply to "Cost-of/Burden-of-Illness Studies: Steps Backward?" Author Reply. Table of Contents Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1