Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes最新文献

Background: To assess the validity and reliability of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire 2.1 (MSQv.2.1) in a group of Greek migraineurs.

Design-sample-methods: The Greek version of MSQv.2.1 (MSQv.2.1-GR), a self-report measure with 14 items in 3 domains (Role Restrictive (RR), Role Preventive (RP) and Emotional Function (EF)), was administered during a cross-sectional study to 141 Greek adult migraineurs and 135 controls without migraine or any other primary headache disorder, along with Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) to assess validity. MSQv.2.1-GR was re-administered in a group of participants with migraine two weeks afterwards to assess reliability. Content and construct validity was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Spearman rho, McDonald's omega, Cronbach's alpha. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the latent structure of the MSQv.2.1-GR in migraineurs.

Results: A total of 276 adults participated in the study. Internal consistency of the three MSQv.2.1-GR scales RR, RP and EF yielded a range of McDonald's omega from 0.832 to 0.923 (Cronbach's alpha from 0.814 to 0.923). CFA confirmed the proposed three-factor MSQv.2.1-GR latent structure with acceptable goodness of fit indices and factor loadings. Correlations were established between MSQv2.1-GR component and MIDAS scores, showing moderate and statistically significant relationships (from - 0.519 to -0.562, all p < 0.001) for RR, RP and EF. Correlations between MSQv2.1-GR and SF-12 component scores were identified, with values from 0.1 to 0.4, indicating low to moderate associations. ICC was calculated at 0.997, indicating a high level of reliability between the measures. Notably, all MSQv2.1-GR scores (RR, RP, EF) were significantly higher in the controls compared to migraineurs (p < 0.001 for all scales). These findings suggest that MSQv2.1-GR is internally consistent, shows significant correlations with relevant measures, and is effective in discriminating controls from migraineurs.

Conclusion: MSQv2.1-GR is a valid and reliable tool to determine the effect migraine has on the quality of life of Greek-speaking migraineurs.

Background: Cancer-associated malnutrition is associated with worse symptom severity, functional status, quality of life, and overall survival. Malnutrition in cancer patients is often under-recognized and undertreated, emphasizing the need for standardized pathways for nutritional management in this population. The objectives of this study were to (1) investigate the relationship between malnutrition risk and self-reported symptom severity scores in an adult oncology outpatient population and (2) to identify whether a secondary screening tool for malnutrition risk (abPG-SGA) should be recommended for patients with a specific ESAS-r cut-off score or group of ESAS-r cut-off scores.

Methods: A single-institution retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Malnutrition risk was measured using the Abridged Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (abPG-SGA). Cancer symptom severity was measured using the Revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r). In accordance with standard institutional practice, patients completed both tools at first consult at the cancer centre. Adult patients who completed the ESAS-r and abPG-SGA on the same day between February 2017 and January 2020 were included. Spearman's correlation, Mann Whitney U tests, receiver operating characteristic curves, and binary logistic regression models were used for statistical analyses.

Results: 2071 oncology outpatients met inclusion criteria (mean age 65.7), of which 33.6% were identified to be at risk for malnutrition. For all ESAS-r parameters (pain, tiredness, drowsiness, nausea, lack of appetite, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, and wellbeing), patients at risk for malnutrition had significantly higher scores (P < 0.001). All ESAS-r parameters were positively correlated with abPG-SGA score (P < 0.01). The ESAS-r parameters that best predicted malnutrition risk status were total ESAS-r score, lack of appetite, tiredness, and wellbeing (area under the curve = 0.824, 0.812, 0.764, 0.761 respectively). Lack of appetite score ≥ 1 demonstrated a sensitivity of 77.4% and specificity of 77.0%. Combining lack of appetite score ≥ 1 with total ESAS score > 14 yielded a sensitivity of 87.9% and specificity of 62.8%.

Conclusion: Malnutrition risk as measured by the abPG-SGA and symptom severity scores as measured by the ESAS-r are positively and significantly correlated. Given the widespread use of the ESAS-r in cancer care, utilizing specific ESAS-r cut-offs to trigger malnutrition screening could be a viable way to identify cancer patients at risk for malnutrition.

Background: Patients with COVID-19 often experience severe long-term sequelae. This study aimed to assess resilience and Quality of Life (QoL) of patients who underwent mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19, one year after discharge.

Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled patients who received mechanical ventilation for severe COVID-19 and were assessed one-year post-discharge. Participants completed a structured questionnaire via telephone comprising the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status scale (PCFS). To establish the association between QoL and resilience, Spearman correlations were calculated between the PCFS and the CD-RISC. Linear regression models were adjusted to evaluate which factors were associated with QoL, with the total score of PCFS as the dependent variable.

Results: A total of 225 patients were included in the analysis. The CD-RISC had a median score of 83 (IQR 74-91). The PCFS results showed that 61.3% (n = 138) of the patients were able to resume their daily activities without limitations. Among them, 37.3% (n = 84) were classified as Grade 0 and 24% (n = 54) as Grade 1. Mild and moderate functional limitations were found in 33.7% of the patients, with 24.8% (n = 56) classified as Grade 2 and 8.8% (n = 20) as Grade 3. Severe functional limitations (Grade 4) were observed in 4.8% (n = 11) of the patients. High CD-RISC scores were associated with lower levels of PCFS score (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: In this cohort of critically ill patients who underwent mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19, 38% of patients experienced a significant decline in their QoL one year after hospital discharge. Finally, a high level of resilience was strongly associated with better QoL one year after discharge.

Purpose: Despite a known risk of cellulitis recurrence, the management of the wider impact and risk factors has been neglected. The innovative National Cellulitis Improvement Programme (NCIP) addresses this by providing evidence-based and individualised care to improve patient reported outcomes and reduce the risk of recurrence. The aim of this paper is to examine the longer-term impact of cellulitis and to identify a suitable and clinically relevant Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM).

Methods: A review of existing cellulitis-specific PROMs was undertaken, alongside literature detailing the patient-focused impact of cellulitis, to identify a suitable PROM for clinical use. A group of expert therapists and patient representatives (n = 14) shared their individual and collective experiences over a series of events to discuss and debate the impact of cellulitis and review available PROMs. CELLUPROM^© is introduced with anonymised PROM data and case study information reported to establish the impact of CELLUPROM^© within usual NCIP care.

Results: No cellulitis-specific PROMs were identified. Literature focused on the signs and symptoms of an acute episode of cellulitis, with outcome measures primarily used to evidence the impact of an intervention. An enduring physical, social and emotional impact of cellulitis was identified in this study, providing the basis for the new cellulitis-specific PROM (CELLUPROM^©), which has been implemented with good effect in clinical care.

Conclusion: This study has highlighted the lasting impact of cellulitis. Using CELLUPROM^© within the risk-reduction NCIP has helped develop Value-Based Healthcare and support programme evaluation.

Purpose: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

Methods: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.

Results: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.

Conclusion: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Background: The NFLymSI-18 is a patient-reported outcome measure comprised of the highest priority symptoms, emotional concerns, treatment side effects, and other concerns identified by lymphoma patients and oncologists. This study assessed the content validity of the NFLymSI-18 for patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (iNHL), with a focus on the Disease-Related Symptoms Physical (DRS-P) subscale.

Methods: Patients with a confirmed iNHL diagnosis who had received one or more lines of treatment were recruited during clinic visits. Patients described their symptoms, treatment side effects, and emotional concerns related to iNHL in a semi-structured interview. Qualitative data were analyzed using NVivo10.

Results: Data saturation was obtained by the 18th interview. Most participants (67%) had follicular lymphoma. 28% of participants had marginal zone lymphoma, and one participant had lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma/Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Mean age of the 18 participants was 67 years. 56% of the sample was male. Most participants (67%) had a college or advanced degree. When asked to describe their iNHL symptoms, patients most often discussed swelling (n = 14), fatigue (n = 11), and pain (n = 8). The following symptoms were mentioned by three patients each: anxiety, appetite loss, rash, sleep disruption, trouble breathing, and malaise. Mapping of NFLymSI-18 content to these concerns showed the instrument includes all those most frequently mentioned symptoms.

Conclusions: This study supports the content validity of the NFLymSI-18, including its DRS-P Subscale, for patients with iNHL. The instrument shows strong validity for the most referenced symptoms of swelling, fatigue, and pain. The diversity of additional symptoms reported by patients is consistent with the heterogeneous symptomology of iNHL.

Background: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are being used frequently in clinical practice. PROs often serve several purposes, such as increasing patient involvement, assessing health status, and monitoring and improving the quality-of-care at an aggregated level. However, the lack of representative PRO-data may have implications for all these purposes. This study aims to assess the association of non-administration of (not sending an electronic invite to PRO) and non-response to (not responding to PRO) electronically administered PROs with social inequality in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting. Furthermore, it examines whether the workflows surrounding PRO have an impact on non-administration and non-response.

Methods: This is a cross sectional study using routinely collected data from electronic health records and registers including cancer survivors (CSs) over 18 years booked for an initial consultation in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting using PROs for systematic health status assessment. During the study period two different PRO platforms were used, each associated with different workflows. Non-administration and non-response rates were calculated for sociodemographic characteristics for each PRO platform. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

Results: In total, 1868 (platform 1) and 1446 (platform 2) CSCSs were booked for an initial consultation. Of these, 233 (12.5%) (platform 1) and 283 (19.6%) (platform 2) were not sent a PRO (non-administration). Among those who received a PRO, 157 (9.6%) on platform 1 and 140 (12.0%) on platform 2 did not respond (non-response). Non-administration of and non-response to PROs were significantly associated with lower socioeconomic status. Moreover, the workflows surrounding PROs seem to have an impact on non-inclusion in and non-response to PROs.

Conclusions: Non-administration of and non-response to PROs in clinical practice is associated with determinants of social inequality. Clinical workflows and the PRO platforms used may potentially worsen this inequality. It is important to consider these implications when using PROs at both the individual and aggregated levels. A key aspect of implementing PROs in clinical practice is the ongoing focus on representativeness, including a focus on monitoring PRO administration and response.

Background: As cancer centers have increased focus on patient-centered, evidenced-based care, implementing efficient programs that facilitate effective patient-clinician communication remains critical. We implemented an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes). To aid evaluation of cPRO implementation, we asked patients receiving care in one of three geographical regions of an academic healthcare system about their experiences.

Methods: Using a sequential mixed-methods approach, we collected feedback in two waves. Wave 1 included virtual focus groups and interviews with patients who had completed cPRO. In Wave 2, we administered a structured survey to systematically examine Wave 1 themes. All participants had a diagnosed malignancy and received at least 2 invitations to complete cPRO. We used rapid and traditional qualitative methods to analyze Wave 1 data and focused on identifying facilitators and barriers to cPRO implementation. Wave 2 data were analyzed descriptively.

Results: Participants (n = 180) were on average 62.9 years old; were majority female, White, non-Hispanic, and married; and represented various cancer types and phases of treatment. Wave 1 participants (n = 37) identified facilitators, including cPRO's perceived value and favorable usability, and barriers, including confusion about cPRO's purpose and various considerations for responding. High levels of clinician engagement with, and patient education on, cPRO were described as facilitators while low levels were described as barriers. Wave 2 (n = 143) data demonstrated high endorsement rates of cPRO's usability on domains such as navigability (91.6%), comprehensibility (98.7%), and relevance (82.4%). Wave 2 data also indicated low rates of understanding cPRO's purpose (56.7%), education from care teams about cPRO (22.5%), and discussing results of cPRO with care teams (16.3%).

Conclusions: While patients reported high value and ease of use when completing cPRO, they also reported areas of confusion, emphasizing the importance of patient education on the purpose and use of cPRO and clinician engagement to sustain participation. These results guided successful implementation changes and will inform future improvements.

Background: The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) is a widely used measure of insomnia severity. Various ISI research findings suggest different factor solutions and meaningful within-individual change (MWIC) to detect treatment response in patients with insomnia. This study examined an ISI factor solution and psychometric indices to define MWIC in a robust patient sample from clinical trial settings.

Methods: We endeavored to improve upon previous validation of ISI by examining structural components of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models using two large, placebo-controlled clinical trials of lemborexant for insomnia. Using the best-fitting two-factor solution, we evaluated anchor-based, distribution-based and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve methods to derive an estimate of the MWIC.

Results: The model structure for the 7-item scale proposed in other research did not fit the observed data from our two lemborexant clinical trials (N = 1956) as well as a two-factor solution based on 6 items did. Using triangulation of anchor-based, distribution-based, and ROC methods, we determined that a 5-point reduction using 6 items best represented a clinically meaningful improvement in individuals with insomnia in our patient sample.

Conclusions: A 6-item two-factor scale had better psychometric properties than the 7-item scale in this patient sample. On the 6-item scale, a reduction of 5 points in the ISI total score represented the MWIC. Generalizability of the proposed MWIC may be limited to patient populations with similar demographic and clinical characteristics.

Background: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BRCL) is one of the most common causes of upper extremity (UE) lymphedema in developed nations and substantially impacts health-related quality of life. To advance our understanding of the epidemiology and treatment of BRCL, rigorously developed and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are needed. This study aimed to demonstrate the iterative content validity of a modular UE lymphedema-specific PROM called the LYMPH-Q UE module.

Methods: A multi-step iterative qualitative approach was used. Semi-structured interview data from in-depth qualitative interviews with adult women (18 years and older) with BCRL were used to develop the first set of the LYMPH-Q UE scales. The content validity of these scales was demonstrated with patient and clinician feedback. Over the course of cognitive debriefing interviews, additional concepts of lymphedema worry and impact on work were identified as missing from the LYMPH-Q UE module. Subsequently, two new qualitative studies (a focus group and in-depth concept elicitation interviews with patients) were conducted, and two new scales were developed to measure lymphedema worry and impact on work life and their content validity was demonstrated.

Results: Qualitative data from in-depth and cognitive interviews with 15 (age 40-74 years) and 16 (age 38-74 years) women with BRCL, respectively, and feedback from 12 clinical experts, were used to develop and demonstrate the content validity of six LYMPH-Q UE scales measuring symptoms, function, appearance, psychological, information, and arm sleeve. Additionally, data from in-depth interviews with 12 (age 35-72 years) women with UE lymphedema and four focus groups (n = 16 women; age 35-74 years) was used to develop and assess the content validity of two new LYMPH-Q UE scales measuring lymphedema worry and impact on work life. The content validity of the previously established six scales was also demonstrated in these subsequent qualitative studies.

Conclusion: The LYMPH-Q UE is a modular PROM developed using international guidelines for PROM development and can be used in clinical practice, research, and quality improvement to enhance patient-centered shared decision-making. This study's innovative and iterative approach to content validation demonstrates that the LYMPH-Q UE is a comprehensive measure that includes important concepts relevant to patients with UE lymphedema.