首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes最新文献

英文 中文
Rethinking surgical success in non-cancer operations-why patient experience must lead. 重新思考非癌症手术的成功——为什么病人的经验必须领先。
IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-21 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00927-9
Jacob Rosenberg, Anders Gram-Hanssen, Hugin Reistrup, Jason Joe Baker

Background: Traditionally, surgical success in non-cancer operations, such as elective hernia repair, has been defined by clinical outcomes, including recurrence and complication rates. However, these measures do not capture the primary reason patients seek surgery: relief from symptoms and an improved quality of life. Despite the evident patient-centered goal of non-cancer surgical procedures, research has long prioritized clinical parameters over patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A shift is essential to ensure that surgical success aligns with what truly matters to patients.

Main body: Current surgical research and practice heavily rely on clinical benchmarks that do not adequately reflect patients' lived experiences. For non-cancer conditions, where surgery is elective and aims to enhance quality of life, PROs should serve as the primary indicators of success. Studies across various surgical disciplines have revealed discrepancies between clinical outcome measures and patient satisfaction, highlighting the need for validated, standardized PRO instruments. The Danish AFTERHERNIA Project exemplifies efforts to integrate PROs into surgical evaluations, utilizing digital health infrastructure to systematically capture patient experiences. Additionally, condition-specific tools, such as the Abdominal Hernia-Q, demonstrate the growing recognition of patient-centered metrics. However, the widespread implementation of PRO measurement faces challenges, including resource constraints and the need for clinician training. Addressing these barriers is important for redefining success in non-cancer surgical care.

Conclusions: A paradigm shift in non-cancer surgical evaluation is important. Success should be measured not only by technical outcomes but also by enhancements in patient-reported quality of life and satisfaction. Incorporating PROs into surgical research and practice is both a scientific necessity and an ethical responsibility to ensure that patient needs are addressed. Moving forward, the patient experience must become the foundation for defining surgical success in non-cancer conditions. Ultimately, the primary objective of surgical intervention should be to improve the patient's health status and overall well-being compared to their preoperative condition.

背景:传统上,非肿瘤手术的手术成功,如择期疝修补术,是由临床结果来定义的,包括复发率和并发症发生率。然而,这些措施并没有抓住患者寻求手术的主要原因:缓解症状和改善生活质量。尽管非癌症外科手术的目标是以患者为中心,但研究长期以来一直优先考虑临床参数而不是患者报告的结果(PROs)。为了确保手术成功与患者真正关心的事情保持一致,这种转变是必不可少的。主体:目前的外科研究和实践严重依赖临床基准,不能充分反映患者的生活经历。对于非癌症情况,手术是可选的,目的是提高生活质量,PROs应作为成功的主要指标。各种外科学科的研究揭示了临床结果测量和患者满意度之间的差异,强调了对经过验证的标准化PRO仪器的需求。丹麦的“疝气后”项目(AFTERHERNIA Project)是将PROs整合到手术评估中,利用数字医疗基础设施系统地获取患者体验的一个范例。此外,针对特定疾病的工具,如腹疝- q,表明越来越多的人认识到以患者为中心的指标。然而,PRO测量的广泛实施面临着挑战,包括资源限制和临床医生培训的需要。解决这些障碍对于重新定义非癌症手术治疗的成功是很重要的。结论:非癌性手术评估的范式转变是重要的。衡量成功的标准不仅要看技术成果,还要看患者报告的生活质量和满意度的提高。将pro纳入外科研究和实践既是科学上的需要,也是确保满足患者需求的道德责任。展望未来,患者体验必须成为确定非癌症条件下手术成功的基础。最终,手术干预的主要目标应该是改善患者的健康状况和与术前相比的整体幸福感。
{"title":"Rethinking surgical success in non-cancer operations-why patient experience must lead.","authors":"Jacob Rosenberg, Anders Gram-Hanssen, Hugin Reistrup, Jason Joe Baker","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00927-9","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00927-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditionally, surgical success in non-cancer operations, such as elective hernia repair, has been defined by clinical outcomes, including recurrence and complication rates. However, these measures do not capture the primary reason patients seek surgery: relief from symptoms and an improved quality of life. Despite the evident patient-centered goal of non-cancer surgical procedures, research has long prioritized clinical parameters over patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A shift is essential to ensure that surgical success aligns with what truly matters to patients.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Current surgical research and practice heavily rely on clinical benchmarks that do not adequately reflect patients' lived experiences. For non-cancer conditions, where surgery is elective and aims to enhance quality of life, PROs should serve as the primary indicators of success. Studies across various surgical disciplines have revealed discrepancies between clinical outcome measures and patient satisfaction, highlighting the need for validated, standardized PRO instruments. The Danish AFTERHERNIA Project exemplifies efforts to integrate PROs into surgical evaluations, utilizing digital health infrastructure to systematically capture patient experiences. Additionally, condition-specific tools, such as the Abdominal Hernia-Q, demonstrate the growing recognition of patient-centered metrics. However, the widespread implementation of PRO measurement faces challenges, including resource constraints and the need for clinician training. Addressing these barriers is important for redefining success in non-cancer surgical care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A paradigm shift in non-cancer surgical evaluation is important. Success should be measured not only by technical outcomes but also by enhancements in patient-reported quality of life and satisfaction. Incorporating PROs into surgical research and practice is both a scientific necessity and an ethical responsibility to ensure that patient needs are addressed. Moving forward, the patient experience must become the foundation for defining surgical success in non-cancer conditions. Ultimately, the primary objective of surgical intervention should be to improve the patient's health status and overall well-being compared to their preoperative condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"93"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12279678/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144676047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Quality of patient-reported outcome measures for acute bronchitis: a systematic review of instruments and measurement properties. 急性支气管炎患者报告结果测量的质量:对仪器和测量特性的系统评价。
IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-17 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00921-1
Theresa Donhauser, Katharina Piontek, Ann-Kristin Baalmann, Christian Apfelbacher

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized questionnaires for the assessment of health outcomes directly from the patient. A systematic evaluation of the quality of PROMs for acute bronchitis (AB) and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold has not yet been performed. The present study aimed to systematically review the quality of available PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold for use in adults and children.

Methodology: Embase, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study, evaluated the quality of measurement properties per PROM and study, and graded the evidence according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Based on the overall evidence, we derived recommendations for use of the instruments.

Results: We included three studies on three PROMs for adults measuring disease severity (Acute Bronchitis Severity Score (ABSS); Symptom Diary) and cough-related quality of life (Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ-acute)). For children, we included two studies on two PROMs assessing quality of life (Parent-proxy Children's Acute Cough-specific QoL Questionnaire (PAC-QoL16) and its Short Form (PAC-QoL6)), and one study on a PROM assessing cold symptoms (Child Cold Symptom Questionnaire (CCSQ)). All instruments were classified as COSMIN category B except for the PAC-QoL6, indicating that they have the potential to be recommended, but require further validation. The PAC-QoL6 cannot be recommended for use (COSMIN category C). Content validity is a shortcoming of all identified PROMs.

Conclusions: None of the identified PROMs can be unrestrictedly recommended for use in future research. For adults, the LCQ-acute appears the most suitable tool warranting further validation. Given the intensive work on scale development and testing for PROM design, the CCSQ is promising for use in children. Content validity assessments involving patients and experts are highly recommended for all identified PROMs.

Systematic review registration: OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3G6CP ).

背景:患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)是直接从患者那里评估健康结果的标准化问卷。急性支气管炎(AB)和(下)呼吸道感染或普通感冒引起的急性咳嗽的PROMs质量尚未进行系统评价。本研究旨在系统评价成人和儿童用于AB和(下)呼吸道感染或普通感冒引起的急性咳嗽的PROMs的质量。方法:检索Embase、PubMed和Web of Science,检索关于AB和(下)呼吸道感染或普通感冒引起的急性咳嗽的PROMs的开发和/或验证的研究报告。我们评估了每个纳入研究的方法学质量,评估了每个PROM和研究的测量特性的质量,并根据基于共识的健康测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)方法学对证据进行了分级。根据总体证据,我们得出了使用这些仪器的建议。结果:我们纳入了三项关于成人疾病严重程度(急性支气管炎严重程度评分(ABSS);症状日记)和咳嗽相关生活质量(莱斯特咳嗽问卷(lcq -急性))。对于儿童,我们纳入了两项评估生活质量的PROM研究(家长代理儿童急性咳嗽特异性生活质量问卷(PAC-QoL16)及其简式问卷(PAC-QoL6)),以及一项评估感冒症状的PROM研究(儿童感冒症状问卷(CCSQ))。除PAC-QoL6外,所有仪器均被归类为COSMIN B类,表明它们具有推荐的潜力,但需要进一步验证。PAC-QoL6不建议使用(COSMIN C类)。内容效度是所有已识别prom的一个缺点。结论:所有鉴定出的PROMs均不能无限制地推荐用于未来的研究。对于成人,LCQ-acute似乎是最合适的工具,需要进一步验证。鉴于对PROM设计的大规模开发和测试的密集工作,CCSQ有望在儿童中使用。强烈建议对所有已确定的prom进行涉及患者和专家的内容效度评估。系统评审注册:OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3G6CP)。
{"title":"Quality of patient-reported outcome measures for acute bronchitis: a systematic review of instruments and measurement properties.","authors":"Theresa Donhauser, Katharina Piontek, Ann-Kristin Baalmann, Christian Apfelbacher","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00921-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00921-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized questionnaires for the assessment of health outcomes directly from the patient. A systematic evaluation of the quality of PROMs for acute bronchitis (AB) and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold has not yet been performed. The present study aimed to systematically review the quality of available PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold for use in adults and children.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Embase, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study, evaluated the quality of measurement properties per PROM and study, and graded the evidence according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Based on the overall evidence, we derived recommendations for use of the instruments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included three studies on three PROMs for adults measuring disease severity (Acute Bronchitis Severity Score (ABSS); Symptom Diary) and cough-related quality of life (Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ-acute)). For children, we included two studies on two PROMs assessing quality of life (Parent-proxy Children's Acute Cough-specific QoL Questionnaire (PAC-QoL<sub>16</sub>) and its Short Form (PAC-QoL<sub>6</sub>)), and one study on a PROM assessing cold symptoms (Child Cold Symptom Questionnaire (CCSQ)). All instruments were classified as COSMIN category B except for the PAC-QoL<sub>6</sub>, indicating that they have the potential to be recommended, but require further validation. The PAC-QoL<sub>6</sub> cannot be recommended for use (COSMIN category C). Content validity is a shortcoming of all identified PROMs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>None of the identified PROMs can be unrestrictedly recommended for use in future research. For adults, the LCQ-acute appears the most suitable tool warranting further validation. Given the intensive work on scale development and testing for PROM design, the CCSQ is promising for use in children. Content validity assessments involving patients and experts are highly recommended for all identified PROMs.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3G6CP ).</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"92"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12271018/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144660660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
'How low can you go?' Developers' perspectives on involving young children in the development of patient reported outcome measures. “你能走多低?”开发人员对幼儿参与患者报告结果测量的发展的看法。
IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-15 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00924-y
Victoria Gale, Philip A Powell, Jill Carlton

Background: Recommendations suggest that children need to be ≥ 8 years-old to participate in concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive interviewing (CI) when developing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, these recommendations have not been subject to thorough scrutiny and recent evidence suggests that younger children may be enabled to participate. This study audited current opinions of PROM developers regarding the feasibility of conducting CE and CI research with children.

Methodology: An online survey was developed to capture PROM developers' perspectives, recruited from existing networks (UK PROMs, International Society for Quality of Life Research) and outcomes research groups from English-speaking countries between August-November 2024. Survey questions explored the ages from which developers considered it feasible to include children in CE and CI research, their previous experiences conducting CE/CI research with children, and respondents' background experiences with children. Results were analysed descriptively, and exploratory comparisons were made based on developers' characteristics.

Results: Fifty-eight responses were analysed. The mean youngest ages considered feasible to include children in CE and CI research were 6.66 years and 7.36 years, respectively. The mean youngest ages respondents reported involving children in CE and CI research in practice were 7.67 years and 8.13 years, respectively. Concern that children would have insufficient cognitive and/or linguistic skills was the most often endorsed reason for considering the involvement of younger children to be infeasible. Respondents who had recent parental experience with younger children tended to consider it feasible to include children from younger ages. Those who had conducted CI with children considered it feasible to include children in CI from younger ages. Opposingly, those who had conducted CE with children considered it less feasible to include younger children in CE research.

Conclusions: In-line with established precedent, PROM developers included children from ∼ 8 years-old in CE and CI research, while in principle considering it feasible to include younger ages. Reasons for including (or not including) certain age groups in CE and CI research need critical evaluation and PROM developers may wish to consider ways in which more inclusive opportunities for younger children can be provided.

背景:建议在制定患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)时,儿童需要≥8岁才能参与概念启发(CE)和认知访谈(CI)。然而,这些建议并没有受到彻底的审查,最近的证据表明,年幼的儿童可以参与其中。本研究审核了当前PROM开发者关于在儿童中进行CE和CI研究的可行性的意见。方法:在2024年8月至11月期间,从现有网络(英国PROM,国际生活质量研究协会)和英语国家的结果研究小组中招募了一项在线调查,以捕捉PROM开发者的观点。调查问题探讨了开发人员认为可以将儿童纳入CE和CI研究的年龄,他们以前与儿童进行CE/CI研究的经验,以及受访者与儿童的背景经验。对结果进行描述性分析,并根据开发商的特点进行探索性比较。结果:对58份问卷进行了分析。考虑将儿童纳入CE和CI研究的平均最小年龄分别为6.66岁和7.36岁。受访者报告的涉及CE和CI研究的儿童的平均最小年龄分别为7.67岁和8.13岁。考虑到儿童没有足够的认知和/或语言技能,最常被赞同的理由是认为年幼儿童的参与是不可行的。最近有过幼童父母经历的受访者倾向于认为将幼童包括在内是可行的。那些对儿童进行CI的人认为将儿童从更小的年龄纳入CI是可行的。相反,那些对儿童进行过CE研究的人认为将年幼的儿童纳入CE研究不太可行。结论:与已有的先例一致,在CE和CI研究中,PROM研究人员纳入了8岁~ 8岁的儿童,而原则上认为纳入更小的年龄是可行的。在CE和CI研究中包括(或不包括)某些年龄组的原因需要进行批判性评估,PROM开发者可能希望考虑为年幼儿童提供更具包容性的机会的方法。
{"title":"'How low can you go?' Developers' perspectives on involving young children in the development of patient reported outcome measures.","authors":"Victoria Gale, Philip A Powell, Jill Carlton","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00924-y","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00924-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recommendations suggest that children need to be ≥ 8 years-old to participate in concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive interviewing (CI) when developing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, these recommendations have not been subject to thorough scrutiny and recent evidence suggests that younger children may be enabled to participate. This study audited current opinions of PROM developers regarding the feasibility of conducting CE and CI research with children.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>An online survey was developed to capture PROM developers' perspectives, recruited from existing networks (UK PROMs, International Society for Quality of Life Research) and outcomes research groups from English-speaking countries between August-November 2024. Survey questions explored the ages from which developers considered it feasible to include children in CE and CI research, their previous experiences conducting CE/CI research with children, and respondents' background experiences with children. Results were analysed descriptively, and exploratory comparisons were made based on developers' characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-eight responses were analysed. The mean youngest ages considered feasible to include children in CE and CI research were 6.66 years and 7.36 years, respectively. The mean youngest ages respondents reported involving children in CE and CI research in practice were 7.67 years and 8.13 years, respectively. Concern that children would have insufficient cognitive and/or linguistic skills was the most often endorsed reason for considering the involvement of younger children to be infeasible. Respondents who had recent parental experience with younger children tended to consider it feasible to include children from younger ages. Those who had conducted CI with children considered it feasible to include children in CI from younger ages. Opposingly, those who had conducted CE with children considered it less feasible to include younger children in CE research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In-line with established precedent, PROM developers included children from ∼ 8 years-old in CE and CI research, while in principle considering it feasible to include younger ages. Reasons for including (or not including) certain age groups in CE and CI research need critical evaluation and PROM developers may wish to consider ways in which more inclusive opportunities for younger children can be provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"91"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12263538/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144638337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Case-mix Adjustment of Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs): a rapid review to inform benchmarking practices across inpatient health centers in Switzerland. 患者报告经验措施(PREMs)的病例组合调整:为瑞士住院保健中心的基准做法提供信息的快速审查。
IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-15 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00922-0
Katrina Obas, Chiara Storari, Francesca Giuliani

Aim: The rapid review aimed to analyse current practices and recommendations regarding case-mix adjustment for benchmarking Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) across inpatient health centres. Findings will inform the applicability of case-mix adjustment to PREMs in the Swiss context.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies which met the following criteria: PREMs is a main outcome, study from a European country with a national inpatient PREMs survey, study with adult patients in acute care setting, and evaluates the effect of case-mix adjustment on PREMs. Screening and appraisal were performed by an experienced epidemiologist. A narrative evidence synthesis was undertaken to address the review question, with support of tables to summarize evidence on case-mix variables and statistical methods.

Results: Seven studies (n = 301,833) were included. All supported case-mix adjustment to some extent, though variables used for case mix varied, complicating standardization. Concerns included the risk of masking quality differences. To address this, several authors advocated reporting both adjusted and unadjusted scores. Only one study included language spoken as a case mix variable-a key factor in Switzerland.

Discussion: Case-mix adjustment can enhance fairness in PREM-based benchmarking but must be applied cautiously. For multilingual contexts like Switzerland, local relevance of adjustment variables should be evaluated. A stepwise, transparent approach is recommended to avoid obscuring true performance differences.

目的:快速审查的目的是分析关于住院保健中心的病人报告经验措施(PREMs)基准的病例组合调整的现行做法和建议。调查结果将说明在瑞士情况下对PREMs进行病例组合调整的适用性。方法:我们检索PubMed, Embase和Web of Science,寻找符合以下标准的研究:PREMs是主要结局,研究来自欧洲国家的全国住院患者PREMs调查,研究急性护理环境中的成年患者,并评估病例组合调整对PREMs的影响。筛查和鉴定由经验丰富的流行病学家进行。对审查问题进行了叙述性证据综合,并利用表格来总结关于病例混合变量和统计方法的证据。结果:纳入7项研究(n = 301,833)。所有这些都在一定程度上支持病例组合调整,尽管用于病例组合的变量各不相同,使标准化复杂化。担忧包括掩盖质量差异的风险。为了解决这个问题,一些作者主张报告调整和未调整的分数。只有一项研究将使用的语言作为病例混合变量——这在瑞士是一个关键因素。讨论:案例组合调整可以提高基于prem的基准测试的公平性,但必须谨慎应用。对于像瑞士这样的多语言环境,应该评估调整变量的本地相关性。建议采用逐步透明的方法来避免掩盖真正的性能差异。
{"title":"Case-mix Adjustment of Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs): a rapid review to inform benchmarking practices across inpatient health centers in Switzerland.","authors":"Katrina Obas, Chiara Storari, Francesca Giuliani","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00922-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00922-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The rapid review aimed to analyse current practices and recommendations regarding case-mix adjustment for benchmarking Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) across inpatient health centres. Findings will inform the applicability of case-mix adjustment to PREMs in the Swiss context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies which met the following criteria: PREMs is a main outcome, study from a European country with a national inpatient PREMs survey, study with adult patients in acute care setting, and evaluates the effect of case-mix adjustment on PREMs. Screening and appraisal were performed by an experienced epidemiologist. A narrative evidence synthesis was undertaken to address the review question, with support of tables to summarize evidence on case-mix variables and statistical methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies (n = 301,833) were included. All supported case-mix adjustment to some extent, though variables used for case mix varied, complicating standardization. Concerns included the risk of masking quality differences. To address this, several authors advocated reporting both adjusted and unadjusted scores. Only one study included language spoken as a case mix variable-a key factor in Switzerland.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Case-mix adjustment can enhance fairness in PREM-based benchmarking but must be applied cautiously. For multilingual contexts like Switzerland, local relevance of adjustment variables should be evaluated. A stepwise, transparent approach is recommended to avoid obscuring true performance differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"90"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12259499/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144638336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Principles of good practice for concept definition in the context of translation and linguistic validation of clinical outcome assessments (COAs). 临床结果评估(COAs)翻译和语言验证背景下概念定义的良好实践原则。
IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-14 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00920-2
Benjamin Arnold, Dana Weiss, Emily Parks-Vernizzi, Barbara Brandt, Ana Popielnicki, Beatrice Tedeschi, Clayon Hamilton, Mark Wade, John Chaplin, Holger Muehlan, Jussi P Repo, Sonya Eremenco

Background: Translation teams conducting translation and cultural adaptation find it paramount to properly describe concepts of items within clinical outcome assessments (COAs). To minimize potential threats to linguistic/conceptual equivalence, these teams must understand the concepts a COA intends to measure. This research provides recommendations for the process of developing concept definitions in general, as well as specific recommendations on who should be involved in the process and what a concept definition document should contain.

Methods: The Concept Definition Working Group of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) carried out a literature review and a survey of 20 professionals working in the area of translation and linguistic validation of COAs. The Working Group based recommendations on a combination of survey results and consensus building via online meetings.

Results: Translation teams should develop concept definitions during the preparation phase of the translation process, assuming they do not already exist, and include COA developers and project managers with experience in linguistic validation and conceptual analysis of COAs. The Working Group recommends that concept definitions consist of information related to the therapeutic area being studied, information related to the COA development process, definitions of concepts and domains, as well as elaboration of colloquialisms and acceptable/unacceptable translation alternatives. We recommend centralized distribution of concept definitions.

Conclusions: Concept definitions guide stakeholders and ensure all parties align on the intended meaning of items being translated. While experts have made recommendations for best practices around translation and linguistic validation methodology, they have not clearly delineated the process of defining concepts. The Concept Definition Working Group of the ISOQOL TCA-SIG has therefore developed a set of recommendations for the process of defining concepts. With these recommendations the Working Group intends to standardize the development of concept definitions with the goal of enhancing conceptual equivalence across translations to support data pooling and provide confidence that clinical trial data are comparable, interpretable, and can be relied upon in evaluating clinical benefit of treatments.

背景:进行翻译和文化适应的翻译团队发现,在临床结果评估(coa)中正确描述项目概念是至关重要的。为了最小化对语言/概念等价的潜在威胁,这些团队必须理解COA打算度量的概念。本研究为一般概念定义的开发过程提供了建议,以及关于谁应该参与这个过程以及概念定义文件应该包含什么内容的具体建议。方法:国际生活质量研究学会(ISOQOL)翻译与文化适应特别兴趣小组(TCA-SIG)对COAs翻译和语言验证领域的20名专业人员进行了文献综述和调查。工作组的建议以调查结果和通过在线会议建立共识为基础。结果:翻译团队应该在翻译过程的准备阶段制定概念定义,假设它们还不存在,并包括具有COA语言验证和COA概念分析经验的COA开发人员和项目经理。工作组建议,概念定义应包括与正在研究的治疗领域有关的信息、与COA发展进程有关的信息、概念和领域的定义,以及对口语和可接受/不可接受的翻译替代方案的阐述。我们建议集中分发概念定义。结论:概念定义指导利益相关者,并确保各方在翻译项目的预期含义上保持一致。虽然专家们提出了关于翻译和语言验证方法的最佳实践建议,但他们并没有清楚地描述定义概念的过程。因此,ISOQOL TCA-SIG的概念定义工作组为定义概念的过程制定了一套建议。根据这些建议,工作组打算标准化概念定义的发展,目标是加强翻译之间的概念等效性,以支持数据池,并为临床试验数据的可比性、可解释性和可依赖于评估治疗的临床益处提供信心。
{"title":"Principles of good practice for concept definition in the context of translation and linguistic validation of clinical outcome assessments (COAs).","authors":"Benjamin Arnold, Dana Weiss, Emily Parks-Vernizzi, Barbara Brandt, Ana Popielnicki, Beatrice Tedeschi, Clayon Hamilton, Mark Wade, John Chaplin, Holger Muehlan, Jussi P Repo, Sonya Eremenco","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00920-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00920-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Translation teams conducting translation and cultural adaptation find it paramount to properly describe concepts of items within clinical outcome assessments (COAs). To minimize potential threats to linguistic/conceptual equivalence, these teams must understand the concepts a COA intends to measure. This research provides recommendations for the process of developing concept definitions in general, as well as specific recommendations on who should be involved in the process and what a concept definition document should contain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Concept Definition Working Group of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) carried out a literature review and a survey of 20 professionals working in the area of translation and linguistic validation of COAs. The Working Group based recommendations on a combination of survey results and consensus building via online meetings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Translation teams should develop concept definitions during the preparation phase of the translation process, assuming they do not already exist, and include COA developers and project managers with experience in linguistic validation and conceptual analysis of COAs. The Working Group recommends that concept definitions consist of information related to the therapeutic area being studied, information related to the COA development process, definitions of concepts and domains, as well as elaboration of colloquialisms and acceptable/unacceptable translation alternatives. We recommend centralized distribution of concept definitions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Concept definitions guide stakeholders and ensure all parties align on the intended meaning of items being translated. While experts have made recommendations for best practices around translation and linguistic validation methodology, they have not clearly delineated the process of defining concepts. The Concept Definition Working Group of the ISOQOL TCA-SIG has therefore developed a set of recommendations for the process of defining concepts. With these recommendations the Working Group intends to standardize the development of concept definitions with the goal of enhancing conceptual equivalence across translations to support data pooling and provide confidence that clinical trial data are comparable, interpretable, and can be relied upon in evaluating clinical benefit of treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"89"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12259492/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144627355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Health status, respiratory symptom and dyspnea trajectories in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a seven-year observation in clinical practice. 慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者的健康状况、呼吸症状和呼吸困难轨迹:一项为期七年的临床观察
IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-11 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00923-z
Koichi Nishimura, Masaaki Kusunose, Ayumi Shibayama, Kazuhito Nakayasu

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by progressive airflow limitation, often associated with declining health status. It is widely believed that the burden of the disease increases over time, leading to continuous suffering in the patient. Understanding the long-term course of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the variability in disease progression is crucial for effective management. The purpose of this research was to investigate the long-term trajectories of health status, respiratory symptoms, and dyspnea in COPD patients over a seven-year period and to identify factors associated with different progression patterns.

Methodology: This longitudinal study followed 70 COPD patients for seven years, with evaluations every six months. Participants underwent pulmonary function tests and completed four PRO measures: St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS), and Dyspnoea-12 (D-12). Annual changes were estimated using linear mixed models and linear regression analysis. The patients were categorized into quartiles based on the rate of decline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and changes in PROs.

Results: The group showed a significant deterioration in the FEV1 and PRO measures. FEV1 declined by 25 milliliters annually, while SGRQ Total and CAT scores worsened by 1.4 and 0.6 units per year, respectively. However, substantial variability was observed between individuals. The SGRQ Total score worsened significantly after 1.0 year in the 4th quartile, while the 1st quartile showed improvements at 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 6.5 years. Similarly, while the CAT, E-RS Total and D-12 Total scores deteriorated in the fourth quartile, they remained stable or improved in the first quartile.

Conclusions: The progression of COPD varies widely among individuals. Although some patients experience significant declines, others remain stable or even improve for seven years. These findings challenge the belief that COPD inevitably leads to a constant increase in the burden of disease.

背景:慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)以进行性气流受限为特征,常伴有健康状况下降。人们普遍认为,这种疾病的负担会随着时间的推移而增加,导致患者持续遭受痛苦。了解患者报告的预后(PROs)的长期过程和疾病进展的可变性对于有效管理至关重要。本研究的目的是调查慢性阻塞性肺病患者在7年内的健康状况、呼吸系统症状和呼吸困难的长期轨迹,并确定与不同进展模式相关的因素。方法:这项纵向研究跟踪了70名COPD患者7年,每6个月进行一次评估。参与者进行了肺功能测试,并完成了四项PRO测量:圣乔治呼吸问卷(SGRQ)、COPD评估测试(CAT)、COPD呼吸症状评估(E-RS)和呼吸困难-12 (D-12)。利用线性混合模型和线性回归分析估计年变化。根据一秒钟用力呼气量(FEV1)下降率和pro变化将患者分为四分位数。结果:组内FEV1、PRO指标明显下降。FEV1每年下降25毫升,而SGRQ Total和CAT评分每年分别下降1.4和0.6个单位。然而,在个体之间观察到实质性的差异。SGRQ总分在1.0年后的第4个四分位数明显恶化,而第1个四分位数在2.0、2.5、3.0、4.0、6.0和6.5年有所改善。同样,虽然CAT, E-RS Total和D-12 Total得分在第四个四分位数下降,但它们在第一个四分位数保持稳定或改善。结论:COPD的进展在个体间差异很大。尽管一些患者经历了显著的衰退,但其他患者在7年内保持稳定甚至有所改善。这些发现挑战了COPD不可避免地导致疾病负担不断增加的观点。
{"title":"Health status, respiratory symptom and dyspnea trajectories in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a seven-year observation in clinical practice.","authors":"Koichi Nishimura, Masaaki Kusunose, Ayumi Shibayama, Kazuhito Nakayasu","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00923-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00923-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by progressive airflow limitation, often associated with declining health status. It is widely believed that the burden of the disease increases over time, leading to continuous suffering in the patient. Understanding the long-term course of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the variability in disease progression is crucial for effective management. The purpose of this research was to investigate the long-term trajectories of health status, respiratory symptoms, and dyspnea in COPD patients over a seven-year period and to identify factors associated with different progression patterns.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This longitudinal study followed 70 COPD patients for seven years, with evaluations every six months. Participants underwent pulmonary function tests and completed four PRO measures: St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS), and Dyspnoea-12 (D-12). Annual changes were estimated using linear mixed models and linear regression analysis. The patients were categorized into quartiles based on the rate of decline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV<sub>1</sub>) and changes in PROs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The group showed a significant deterioration in the FEV<sub>1</sub> and PRO measures. FEV<sub>1</sub> declined by 25 milliliters annually, while SGRQ Total and CAT scores worsened by 1.4 and 0.6 units per year, respectively. However, substantial variability was observed between individuals. The SGRQ Total score worsened significantly after 1.0 year in the 4th quartile, while the 1st quartile showed improvements at 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 6.5 years. Similarly, while the CAT, E-RS Total and D-12 Total scores deteriorated in the fourth quartile, they remained stable or improved in the first quartile.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The progression of COPD varies widely among individuals. Although some patients experience significant declines, others remain stable or even improve for seven years. These findings challenge the belief that COPD inevitably leads to a constant increase in the burden of disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"88"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12254445/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144609775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures in chronic pain conditions with central sensitization- a systematic review and meta-analysis. 慢性疼痛伴有中枢致敏的患者报告结果测量的心理测量特性——系统回顾和荟萃分析。
IF 2.9 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-11 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00919-9
Mst Farjana Akhter, Pavlos Bobos, Edith G Otalike, Nana A Tiwaa-Boateng, Andrew D Firth, Igor Karp, Joel J Gagnier

Purpose: To identify available patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to evaluate central sensitization (CS) manifestations in chronic pain conditions and evaluate the quality of psychometric properties of those instruments.

Methods: A comprehensive search across multiple electronic databases was conducted for relevant studies following the specification of eligibility criteria and development of key search terms. After screening and full-text review, the methodological quality of studies and psychometric properties of PROMs were assessed and summarized using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and scoring manual. The results were statistically pooled in a meta-analysis, specifically test-retest reliability, based on data availability and consistency of findings across studies.

Results: A total of fifty-eight studies evaluating eight instruments in adult patients with chronic pain were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was varied. Most identified PROMs have limited evidence regarding their measurement properties. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) received the highest overall ratings for most measurement properties among all the instruments, followed by Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) and Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire (FSQ). Based on pooled data from available studies, the test-retest reliability of the CSI was found to be excellent, with an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95) for overall chronic pain, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93) for chronic musculoskeletal pain and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99) for chronic neck pain. PSQ also demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, showing an ICC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.72-0.99) for chronic pain.

Conclusion: Although not all properties have been studied, the CSI, which received the highest overall ratings, could serve as a reliable PROM assessing CS in chronic pain. More studies should be performed to comprehensively evaluate all measurement properties of all included instruments.

目的:确定可用的患者报告结果测量(PROMs),用于评估慢性疼痛条件下中枢致敏(CS)的表现,并评估这些工具的心理测量特性的质量。方法:在多个电子数据库中进行综合检索,根据资格标准的规范和关键搜索词的开发进行相关研究。在筛选和全文审查后,使用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)清单和评分手册对研究的方法学质量和PROMs的心理测量特性进行评估和总结。结果在荟萃分析中进行统计汇总,特别是基于数据可用性和研究结果一致性的重测信度。结果:共纳入了58项研究,评估了成人慢性疼痛患者的8种器械。纳入研究的方法学质量各不相同。大多数已确定的prom关于其测量特性的证据有限。在所有测量工具中,中枢致敏量表(CSI)在大多数测量特性上获得最高的总体评分,其次是疼痛敏感性问卷(PSQ)和纤维肌痛调查问卷(FSQ)。根据现有研究的汇总数据,CSI的重测信度非常好,总体慢性疼痛的类内相关系数(ICC)为0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95),慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛的类内相关系数(ICC)为0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93),慢性颈部疼痛的类内相关系数(ICC)为0.93 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99)。PSQ也表现出良好的重测信度,显示慢性疼痛的ICC为0.86 (95% CI: 0.72-0.99)。结论:虽然并不是所有的属性都被研究过,但CSI作为一种总体评分最高的指标,可以作为评估慢性疼痛CS的可靠的PROM。应进行更多的研究,以全面评估所有纳入的仪器的所有测量特性。
{"title":"Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures in chronic pain conditions with central sensitization- a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Mst Farjana Akhter, Pavlos Bobos, Edith G Otalike, Nana A Tiwaa-Boateng, Andrew D Firth, Igor Karp, Joel J Gagnier","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00919-9","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00919-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To identify available patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to evaluate central sensitization (CS) manifestations in chronic pain conditions and evaluate the quality of psychometric properties of those instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search across multiple electronic databases was conducted for relevant studies following the specification of eligibility criteria and development of key search terms. After screening and full-text review, the methodological quality of studies and psychometric properties of PROMs were assessed and summarized using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and scoring manual. The results were statistically pooled in a meta-analysis, specifically test-retest reliability, based on data availability and consistency of findings across studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of fifty-eight studies evaluating eight instruments in adult patients with chronic pain were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was varied. Most identified PROMs have limited evidence regarding their measurement properties. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) received the highest overall ratings for most measurement properties among all the instruments, followed by Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) and Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire (FSQ). Based on pooled data from available studies, the test-retest reliability of the CSI was found to be excellent, with an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95) for overall chronic pain, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93) for chronic musculoskeletal pain and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99) for chronic neck pain. PSQ also demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, showing an ICC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.72-0.99) for chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although not all properties have been studied, the CSI, which received the highest overall ratings, could serve as a reliable PROM assessing CS in chronic pain. More studies should be performed to comprehensively evaluate all measurement properties of all included instruments.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"87"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12254461/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144609857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Development and validation of MyCommunication-Youth: A self-report measure for communicative participation in children, adolescents and young adults. MyCommunication-Youth的开发与验证:儿童、青少年和年轻人沟通参与的自我报告测量。
IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-10 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00913-1
Eline Alons, Lizet van Ewijk, Margreet Roelien Luinge, Nicole Ter Wal, Tonny Methorst, Ellen Gerrits, Caroline Barbara Terwee

Background: Communicative participation is the most important outcome of speech and language therapy, but there are no measurement instruments for children, adolescents, and young adults. This paper describes the development of MyCommunication-Youth: an item bank to measure self-reported communicative participation in children, adolescents and young adults with various communication disorders.

Aims: 1) To develop a comprehensive, comprehensible item bank for measuring communicative participation in children, adolescents, and young adults with communication problems. 2) To assess the content validity of the item bank in a sample of these groups. 3) To define criteria for the minimal age at which children with communication difficulties can self-report their communicative participation.

Method: Based on a literature review and two concept elicitation studies three initial versions of item pools were developed: one for children, one for adolescents and one for young adults. These pools were pilot tested, using cognitive debriefing interviews, on comprehensibility and comprehensiveness in a diverse group of participants with communication difficulties, whereafter a second version of the item pools were created. Hereafter, the content validity was assessed in the target population and in a group of speech and language therapists.

Results: Initially, three item pools were created for children (58 items), adolescents (78 items), and young adults (84 items). In the pilot test with 33 children adolescents and young adults with communication difficulties, items were revised for comprehensibility, some items were added for comprehensiveness, and some items were deleted because they appeared irrelevant, resulting in updated pools of 50, 69, and 72 items. In the content validity study, cognitive interviews with 27 participants and a focus group with 8 professionals identified additional revisions. Most items were comprehensible, but some were irrelevant for specific subpopulations of communication difficulties. Two new items were added after the input of professionals, whereafter the item bank was found comprehensive.

Conclusions: MyCommunication-Youth is an item bank for measuring communicative participation in children, adolescents and young adults with various communication difficulties. Three versions of the instrument were created: MyCommunication-Children of 49 items, MyCommunication-Adolescents of 70 items and MyCommunication-YoungAdults of 73 items. The item bank is comprehensible, relevant and comprehensive according to the target population and target professionals.

背景:交际参与是言语和语言治疗最重要的结果,但没有针对儿童、青少年和年轻人的测量工具。本文描述了MyCommunication-Youth的开发:一个用于测量患有各种沟通障碍的儿童、青少年和年轻人自我报告的沟通参与的信息库。目的:1)开发一个全面的、可理解的信息库,用于测量有沟通问题的儿童、青少年和青年的沟通参与。2)评估这些群体样本中题库的内容效度。3)定义沟通困难儿童自我报告其沟通参与的最低年龄标准。方法:在文献回顾和两个概念启发研究的基础上,开发了三个初始版本的项目池:一个用于儿童,一个用于青少年,一个用于年轻人。使用认知汇报访谈对这些项目池进行了试点测试,在一组有沟通困难的不同参与者中对可理解性和综合性进行了测试,然后创建了第二个版本的项目池。随后,在目标人群和一组语言治疗师中评估内容效度。结果:最初,为儿童(58项)、青少年(78项)和年轻人(84项)创建了三个项目池。在对33名有沟通困难的儿童、青少年和青年进行的试点测试中,为了可理解性对项目进行了修改,为了全面性增加了一些项目,因为不相关而删除了一些项目,结果更新了50、69和72个项目。在内容效度研究中,对27名参与者的认知访谈和8名专业人员的焦点小组确定了额外的修订。大多数项目是可以理解的,但有些项目与交流困难的特定亚群无关。经过专业人员的输入,新增了两项,发现题库比较全面。结论:MyCommunication-Youth是一个衡量各种沟通困难儿童、青少年和青年沟通参与的信息库。我们制作了三个版本的工具:包含49个条目的《我的沟通-儿童》、包含70个条目的《我的沟通-青少年》和包含73个条目的《我的沟通-青年》。根据目标人群和目标专业人员,建立可理解、相关和全面的题库。
{"title":"Development and validation of MyCommunication-Youth: A self-report measure for communicative participation in children, adolescents and young adults.","authors":"Eline Alons, Lizet van Ewijk, Margreet Roelien Luinge, Nicole Ter Wal, Tonny Methorst, Ellen Gerrits, Caroline Barbara Terwee","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00913-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00913-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Communicative participation is the most important outcome of speech and language therapy, but there are no measurement instruments for children, adolescents, and young adults. This paper describes the development of MyCommunication-Youth: an item bank to measure self-reported communicative participation in children, adolescents and young adults with various communication disorders.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>1) To develop a comprehensive, comprehensible item bank for measuring communicative participation in children, adolescents, and young adults with communication problems. 2) To assess the content validity of the item bank in a sample of these groups. 3) To define criteria for the minimal age at which children with communication difficulties can self-report their communicative participation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Based on a literature review and two concept elicitation studies three initial versions of item pools were developed: one for children, one for adolescents and one for young adults. These pools were pilot tested, using cognitive debriefing interviews, on comprehensibility and comprehensiveness in a diverse group of participants with communication difficulties, whereafter a second version of the item pools were created. Hereafter, the content validity was assessed in the target population and in a group of speech and language therapists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initially, three item pools were created for children (58 items), adolescents (78 items), and young adults (84 items). In the pilot test with 33 children adolescents and young adults with communication difficulties, items were revised for comprehensibility, some items were added for comprehensiveness, and some items were deleted because they appeared irrelevant, resulting in updated pools of 50, 69, and 72 items. In the content validity study, cognitive interviews with 27 participants and a focus group with 8 professionals identified additional revisions. Most items were comprehensible, but some were irrelevant for specific subpopulations of communication difficulties. Two new items were added after the input of professionals, whereafter the item bank was found comprehensive.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MyCommunication-Youth is an item bank for measuring communicative participation in children, adolescents and young adults with various communication difficulties. Three versions of the instrument were created: MyCommunication-Children of 49 items, MyCommunication-Adolescents of 70 items and MyCommunication-YoungAdults of 73 items. The item bank is comprehensible, relevant and comprehensive according to the target population and target professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"86"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12246294/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144601790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Development of an item bank and outcome importance survey for the Australian and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry. 为澳大利亚和新西兰减肥手术登记处建立一个项目库和结果重要性调查。
IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-08 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00918-w
Alyssa J Budin, Priya Sumithran, Andrew D MacCormick, Ian Caterson, Wendy A Brown

Purpose: The Australian and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry is developing a bariatric-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to capture patient outcomes. This study aimed to establish an item bank and questionnaire to assess which outcomes are considered the most important by pre- & post-surgical patients and healthcare practitioners.

Methods: Initial qualitative studies were undertaken to provide an in-depth understanding of patients' lived experiences, and a targeted literature search was conducted to identify appropriate PROMs. Items from identified PROMs were pooled and categorised to form the basis of a questionnaire developed to interrogate bariatric patients' and healthcare practitioners' opinions on the importance of the various outcomes.

Results: 1,867 items from 76 instruments were extracted and pooled to form the item bank. Items were categorised and refined to generate an Outcome Importance Questionnaire containing 68 items across 10 domains. 313 participants completed the survey, including 48 pre-surgical patients, 180 post-surgical patients, and 85 Healthcare Practitioners. 52 outcomes (of 68; 76.5%) were prioritised by at least 1 group with 'Overall mental health', 'Co-morbidities', 'Satisfaction with surgery' and 'Satisfaction with quality of life' rated as the most important outcomes.

Conclusion: The item bank and outcome importance questionnaire demonstrated good coverage of patient-reported outcomes considered important to all stakeholders. Initial results identified distinct differences in preference votes by patient and healthcare practitioner groups, with sufficient variation to identify those outcomes considered the most important. Additional rounds of testing, including participant-suggested outcomes and forced-choice questions, will facilitate consensus on the most important outcomes for future inclusion in a Registry-based bariatric-specific PROM.

目的:澳大利亚和新西兰减肥手术登记处正在开发一种减肥特异性患者报告的结果测量(PROM)来捕捉患者的结果。本研究的目的是建立一个项目库和问卷,以评估术前和术后患者和医护人员认为哪些结果最重要。方法:进行初步定性研究,以深入了解患者的生活经历,并进行有针对性的文献检索,以确定合适的prom。从确定的PROMs项目汇集和分类,形成调查问卷的基础开发询问肥胖患者和保健从业人员对各种结果的重要性的意见。结果:从76个仪器中提取1867个项目,并汇集形成题库。对项目进行分类和细化,生成结果重要性问卷,其中包含10个领域的68个项目。313名参与者完成了调查,包括48名术前患者,180名术后患者和85名医疗从业人员。76.5%)被至少一组优先考虑,“整体心理健康”、“合并症”、“手术满意度”和“生活质量满意度”被评为最重要的结果。结论:题库和结果重要性问卷显示了对所有利益相关者重要的患者报告结果的良好覆盖。初步结果确定了患者和医疗保健从业者群体在偏好投票上的明显差异,有足够的差异来确定那些被认为是最重要的结果。额外的测试,包括参与者建议的结果和强制选择的问题,将促进对最重要的结果达成共识,以便将来纳入基于注册的肥胖特异性PROM。
{"title":"Development of an item bank and outcome importance survey for the Australian and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry.","authors":"Alyssa J Budin, Priya Sumithran, Andrew D MacCormick, Ian Caterson, Wendy A Brown","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00918-w","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00918-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The Australian and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry is developing a bariatric-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to capture patient outcomes. This study aimed to establish an item bank and questionnaire to assess which outcomes are considered the most important by pre- & post-surgical patients and healthcare practitioners.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Initial qualitative studies were undertaken to provide an in-depth understanding of patients' lived experiences, and a targeted literature search was conducted to identify appropriate PROMs. Items from identified PROMs were pooled and categorised to form the basis of a questionnaire developed to interrogate bariatric patients' and healthcare practitioners' opinions on the importance of the various outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1,867 items from 76 instruments were extracted and pooled to form the item bank. Items were categorised and refined to generate an Outcome Importance Questionnaire containing 68 items across 10 domains. 313 participants completed the survey, including 48 pre-surgical patients, 180 post-surgical patients, and 85 Healthcare Practitioners. 52 outcomes (of 68; 76.5%) were prioritised by at least 1 group with 'Overall mental health', 'Co-morbidities', 'Satisfaction with surgery' and 'Satisfaction with quality of life' rated as the most important outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The item bank and outcome importance questionnaire demonstrated good coverage of patient-reported outcomes considered important to all stakeholders. Initial results identified distinct differences in preference votes by patient and healthcare practitioner groups, with sufficient variation to identify those outcomes considered the most important. Additional rounds of testing, including participant-suggested outcomes and forced-choice questions, will facilitate consensus on the most important outcomes for future inclusion in a Registry-based bariatric-specific PROM.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"85"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12238453/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144585071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Exploring the patient experience of chronic hepatitis D (CHD) and assessment of content validity of the Hepatitis Quality of Life Questionnaire and (HQLQv2) and the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). 探讨慢性丁型肝炎(CHD)患者的经历,评估肝炎生活质量问卷(HQLQv2)和疲劳程度量表(FSS)的内容效度。
IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-07 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00903-3
Pietro Lampertico, Aishwarya Chohan, Hannah Elwick, Nicola Williamson, Rowena Jones, Alon Yehoshua, Caroline Burk, Marvin Rock, Robert Gish, Nancy Reau, Heiner Wedemeyer, Maria Buti

Background: Chronic hepatitis D (CHD) is the most severe form of viral hepatitis, which results in accelerated progression to cirrhosis and poor prognosis compared with other hepatitis infections, impacting patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). To adequately capture patient perspectives of new hepatitis D virus (HDV) treatments in clinical trials, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that are valid and assess key concepts relevant to the patient are needed. This study aimed to explore the patient experience of CHD and evaluate the content validity of the Hepatitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (HQLQv2) and the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) for use in an HDV population.

Methods: Combined qualitative concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews were conducted with 39 patients in Germany, Italy, Spain, and the US with a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of CHD. Participants described their experience of CHD, informing the development of a conceptual model, and then completed the HQLQv2 and FSS using a think-aloud technique to assess understanding, relevance, and comprehensiveness of items, instructions, response scales, and recall periods. Interviews were conducted in the principal language of each country; official translations of the instruments were used, and all patient-facing study documents and the interview guide were translated by certified translators.

Results: The sample included participants with a range of liver fibrosis stages, including 11 with compensated (n = 9) and decompensated (n = 2) cirrhosis. Fatigue, loss of appetite, nausea, joint pain, and pain over the liver were the most frequently reported signs/symptoms. Fatigue was most commonly mentioned and was described as a severe and particularly burdensome symptom, that impacted several aspects of patients' daily lives. Participants reported that CHD impacted their emotional wellbeing (low mood, anxiety), physical functioning (difficulty walking), social functioning (attending social events), activities of daily living (household chores), and work. Participants demonstrated a good understanding of the HQLQv2 and FSS items, instructions, response scales and recall periods, and the concepts assessed were considered relevant to CHD by most participants.

Conclusion: Findings contribute to the understanding of the patient experience of CHD and support content validity of the HQLQv2 and FSS as outcome assessments for use in an HDV population.

背景:慢性丁型肝炎(Chronic hepatitis D, CHD)是一种最严重的病毒性肝炎,与其他肝炎感染相比,其肝硬化进展速度加快,预后差,影响患者健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)。为了在临床试验中充分了解患者对新型丁型肝炎病毒(HDV)治疗的看法,需要有效的患者报告结果(PRO)措施,并评估与患者相关的关键概念。本研究旨在探讨冠心病患者的经历,并评估肝炎生活质量问卷(HQLQv2)和疲劳严重程度量表(FSS)在HDV人群中的内容效度。方法:对德国、意大利、西班牙和美国临床确诊冠心病的39例患者进行定性概念启发(CE)和认知汇报(CD)相结合的访谈。参与者描述了他们的冠心病经历,为概念模型的发展提供了信息,然后使用有声思考技术完成了HQLQv2和FSS,以评估对项目、指示、反应量表和回忆期的理解、相关性和全面性。访谈以每个国家的主要语文进行;使用仪器的官方翻译,所有面向患者的研究文件和访谈指南均由认证翻译人员翻译。结果:样本包括不同阶段肝纤维化的参与者,包括11例代偿性肝硬化(n = 9)和失代偿性肝硬化(n = 2)。疲劳、食欲不振、恶心、关节痛和肝脏疼痛是最常见的症状/体征。疲劳是最常被提及的,被描述为一种严重的、特别沉重的症状,它影响了患者日常生活的几个方面。参与者报告说,冠心病影响了他们的情绪健康(情绪低落、焦虑)、身体功能(行走困难)、社交功能(参加社交活动)、日常生活活动(家务劳动)和工作。参与者对HQLQv2和FSS项目、说明、反应量表和回忆期有很好的理解,大多数参与者认为所评估的概念与冠心病有关。结论:研究结果有助于理解冠心病患者的经历,并支持HQLQv2和FSS作为HDV人群结果评估的内容有效性。
{"title":"Exploring the patient experience of chronic hepatitis D (CHD) and assessment of content validity of the Hepatitis Quality of Life Questionnaire and (HQLQv2) and the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS).","authors":"Pietro Lampertico, Aishwarya Chohan, Hannah Elwick, Nicola Williamson, Rowena Jones, Alon Yehoshua, Caroline Burk, Marvin Rock, Robert Gish, Nancy Reau, Heiner Wedemeyer, Maria Buti","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00903-3","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00903-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic hepatitis D (CHD) is the most severe form of viral hepatitis, which results in accelerated progression to cirrhosis and poor prognosis compared with other hepatitis infections, impacting patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). To adequately capture patient perspectives of new hepatitis D virus (HDV) treatments in clinical trials, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that are valid and assess key concepts relevant to the patient are needed. This study aimed to explore the patient experience of CHD and evaluate the content validity of the Hepatitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (HQLQv2) and the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) for use in an HDV population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Combined qualitative concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews were conducted with 39 patients in Germany, Italy, Spain, and the US with a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of CHD. Participants described their experience of CHD, informing the development of a conceptual model, and then completed the HQLQv2 and FSS using a think-aloud technique to assess understanding, relevance, and comprehensiveness of items, instructions, response scales, and recall periods. Interviews were conducted in the principal language of each country; official translations of the instruments were used, and all patient-facing study documents and the interview guide were translated by certified translators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample included participants with a range of liver fibrosis stages, including 11 with compensated (n = 9) and decompensated (n = 2) cirrhosis. Fatigue, loss of appetite, nausea, joint pain, and pain over the liver were the most frequently reported signs/symptoms. Fatigue was most commonly mentioned and was described as a severe and particularly burdensome symptom, that impacted several aspects of patients' daily lives. Participants reported that CHD impacted their emotional wellbeing (low mood, anxiety), physical functioning (difficulty walking), social functioning (attending social events), activities of daily living (household chores), and work. Participants demonstrated a good understanding of the HQLQv2 and FSS items, instructions, response scales and recall periods, and the concepts assessed were considered relevant to CHD by most participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Findings contribute to the understanding of the patient experience of CHD and support content validity of the HQLQv2 and FSS as outcome assessments for use in an HDV population.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"84"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12234919/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144576541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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