首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes最新文献

英文 中文
Content validity and meaningful change for the FACIT-Fatigue scale in warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia: results from qualitative interview studies with patients. 暖性自身免疫性溶血性贫血facit -疲劳量表的内容效度和意义变化:来自患者定性访谈研究的结果
IF 2.9 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-29 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00930-0
Sheryl Pease, Rikki Mangrum, Karolina Schantz, Christina Slota, Lindsey Rubin, Susan Martin, Cathye Shu, Kayla Scippa

Purpose: Warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) is a rare disorder characterized by premature destruction of red blood cells (hemolysis) and fatigue that affects patients' health-related quality of life. This study aimed to identify fatigue concepts important to patients and evaluate the content validity of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Scale (FACIT-Fatigue) in the wAIHA patient population.

Methodology: Two observational studies collected data via 60-minute, individual interviews. Eligible participants were English-speaking, US-resident adults diagnosed with wAIHA by a physician. Both studies gathered data regarding fatigue experiences that mattered to patients and comprehension and relevance of the FACIT-Fatigue; one study also gathered data about patient perspectives on meaningful change in item-level response selection.

Results: Each study enrolled 10 individuals with wAIHA (n = 20). All participants described fatigue as the most prominent or most bothersome symptom, with substantial impacts on daily functioning, family and social life, and emotional well-being. The FACIT-Fatigue was well understood, comprehensive, and relevant to participants' experiences with wAIHA. Data analysis indicated that at least a 3-point change in total score likely reflects a meaningful change in fatigue.

Conclusions: Fatigue is the primary patient-reported wAIHA symptom and important to measure from the patient perspective. Findings demonstrated that wAIHA patients found the FACIT-Fatigue understandable, comprehensive, and relevant, and the data indicated that the instrument can detect a meaningful change in fatigue symptoms and impacts. Study findings support the content validity of the FACIT-Fatigue and contribute to the evidence that the FACIT-Fatigue is fit-for-purpose to evaluate fatigue in adults with wAIHA.

目的:温性自身免疫性溶血性贫血(wAIHA)是一种罕见的疾病,其特征是红细胞过早破坏(溶血)和疲劳,影响患者与健康相关的生活质量。本研究旨在确定对患者重要的疲劳概念,并评估慢性疾病治疗-疲劳功能评估量表(FACIT-Fatigue)在wAIHA患者群体中的内容效度。方法:两项观察性研究通过60分钟的个人访谈收集数据。符合条件的参与者是由医生诊断患有wAIHA的说英语的美国成年人。两项研究都收集了有关疲劳体验的数据,这些数据对患者和facit -疲劳的理解和相关性很重要;一项研究还收集了有关患者对项目级反应选择有意义变化的看法的数据。结果:每项研究纳入10例wAIHA患者(n = 20)。所有参与者都将疲劳描述为最突出或最令人烦恼的症状,对日常功能、家庭和社交生活以及情感健康都有重大影响。FACIT-Fatigue被很好地理解,全面,并与参与者的wAIHA经验相关。数据分析表明,总分至少3分的变化可能反映了疲劳程度的有意义的变化。结论:疲劳是患者报告的主要wAIHA症状,从患者的角度进行测量很重要。研究结果表明,wAIHA患者发现FACIT-Fatigue是可以理解的、全面的和相关的,数据表明该仪器可以检测疲劳症状和影响的有意义的变化。研究结果支持FACIT-Fatigue的内容效度,并有助于证明FACIT-Fatigue适合用于评估成年wAIHA患者的疲劳。
{"title":"Content validity and meaningful change for the FACIT-Fatigue scale in warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia: results from qualitative interview studies with patients.","authors":"Sheryl Pease, Rikki Mangrum, Karolina Schantz, Christina Slota, Lindsey Rubin, Susan Martin, Cathye Shu, Kayla Scippa","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00930-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00930-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) is a rare disorder characterized by premature destruction of red blood cells (hemolysis) and fatigue that affects patients' health-related quality of life. This study aimed to identify fatigue concepts important to patients and evaluate the content validity of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Scale (FACIT-Fatigue) in the wAIHA patient population.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Two observational studies collected data via 60-minute, individual interviews. Eligible participants were English-speaking, US-resident adults diagnosed with wAIHA by a physician. Both studies gathered data regarding fatigue experiences that mattered to patients and comprehension and relevance of the FACIT-Fatigue; one study also gathered data about patient perspectives on meaningful change in item-level response selection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each study enrolled 10 individuals with wAIHA (n = 20). All participants described fatigue as the most prominent or most bothersome symptom, with substantial impacts on daily functioning, family and social life, and emotional well-being. The FACIT-Fatigue was well understood, comprehensive, and relevant to participants' experiences with wAIHA. Data analysis indicated that at least a 3-point change in total score likely reflects a meaningful change in fatigue.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Fatigue is the primary patient-reported wAIHA symptom and important to measure from the patient perspective. Findings demonstrated that wAIHA patients found the FACIT-Fatigue understandable, comprehensive, and relevant, and the data indicated that the instrument can detect a meaningful change in fatigue symptoms and impacts. Study findings support the content validity of the FACIT-Fatigue and contribute to the evidence that the FACIT-Fatigue is fit-for-purpose to evaluate fatigue in adults with wAIHA.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"97"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12307827/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144733704","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
Quantitative and qualitative analysis of quality of life in people diagnosed with genetic haemochromatosis in the United Kingdom. 英国遗传性血色素沉着症患者生活质量的定量和定性分析。
IF 2.9 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-29 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00865-6
Leah Craven-Smith, Neil McClements, Diogo Gomes, Victoria Pointon

Background: Genetic haemochromatosis (GH) is a long-term genetic condition which results in increased iron absorption into the blood and accumulation of iron into certain organs overtime. Increased absorption and accumulation can be fatal. GH can cause many symptoms including arthritis/joint pain, chronic fatigue, and cognitive difficulties. The aim of this study was to measure quality of life (QoL) in people diagnosed with GH (GH-diagnosed) compared to a healthy sample and identify possible explanations for this.

Methodology: QoL was measured in 535 healthy people and 1039 GH-diagnosed, through completion of the World Health Organisation Quality of Life-100 survey (WHOQOL-100). 985 GH-diagnosed respondents completed a GH-focussed survey, which was developed to get further details of the impact of GH.

Results: Comparison of the WHOQOL-100 overall QoL score between GH-diagnosed and the healthy sample found a significantly lower score in the GH-diagnosed. Physical, psychological, level of independence, and spiritual domains were significantly lower in the GH-diagnosed group. The GH-focussed survey found a high incidence of physical and mental symptoms, and some impact on social and work life. Areas in which participants suggest would improve their QoL included: improved healthcare especially with increased understanding of GH in medical professionals, increased access to appointments, in-person appointments, regular checks for organ damage, more nutrition or dietary advice, and local support groups.

Conclusions: Based on the WHOQOL-100 scores and GH-focussed survey, overall QoL is worse in people diagnosed with GH due to worse physical and psychological symptoms. Improved healthcare may aid in reducing the difference in QoL.

背景:遗传性血色素沉着病(GH)是一种长期的遗传性疾病,导致铁吸收增加到血液和铁积累到某些器官。吸收和积累的增加可能是致命的。生长激素可以引起许多症状,包括关节炎/关节疼痛、慢性疲劳和认知困难。本研究的目的是测量GH患者(GH诊断)与健康样本的生活质量(QoL),并确定可能的解释。方法:通过完成世界卫生组织生活质量100调查(WHOQOL-100),对535名健康人和1039名gh诊断者的生活质量进行测量。985名GH诊断的应答者完成了一项以GH为重点的调查,该调查旨在获得GH影响的进一步细节。结果:WHOQOL-100总体生活质量评分比较发现,gh诊断组与健康组的总体生活质量评分明显较低。gh诊断组的身体、心理、独立水平和精神领域明显较低。这项以gh为重点的调查发现,身体和精神症状的发病率很高,并对社交和工作生活产生了一些影响。参与者建议改善其生活质量的领域包括:改善医疗保健,特别是增加医疗专业人员对生长激素的了解,增加预约,亲自预约,定期检查器官损伤,提供更多营养或饮食建议,以及建立地方支持团体。结论:根据WHOQOL-100评分和GH集中调查,GH患者的总体生活质量较差,因为其生理和心理症状较差。改善的医疗保健可能有助于减少生活质量的差异。
{"title":"Quantitative and qualitative analysis of quality of life in people diagnosed with genetic haemochromatosis in the United Kingdom.","authors":"Leah Craven-Smith, Neil McClements, Diogo Gomes, Victoria Pointon","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00865-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00865-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Genetic haemochromatosis (GH) is a long-term genetic condition which results in increased iron absorption into the blood and accumulation of iron into certain organs overtime. Increased absorption and accumulation can be fatal. GH can cause many symptoms including arthritis/joint pain, chronic fatigue, and cognitive difficulties. The aim of this study was to measure quality of life (QoL) in people diagnosed with GH (GH-diagnosed) compared to a healthy sample and identify possible explanations for this.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>QoL was measured in 535 healthy people and 1039 GH-diagnosed, through completion of the World Health Organisation Quality of Life-100 survey (WHOQOL-100). 985 GH-diagnosed respondents completed a GH-focussed survey, which was developed to get further details of the impact of GH.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comparison of the WHOQOL-100 overall QoL score between GH-diagnosed and the healthy sample found a significantly lower score in the GH-diagnosed. Physical, psychological, level of independence, and spiritual domains were significantly lower in the GH-diagnosed group. The GH-focussed survey found a high incidence of physical and mental symptoms, and some impact on social and work life. Areas in which participants suggest would improve their QoL included: improved healthcare especially with increased understanding of GH in medical professionals, increased access to appointments, in-person appointments, regular checks for organ damage, more nutrition or dietary advice, and local support groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the WHOQOL-100 scores and GH-focussed survey, overall QoL is worse in people diagnosed with GH due to worse physical and psychological symptoms. Improved healthcare may aid in reducing the difference in QoL.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"96"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12307259/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144733656","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
Can machine translation match human expertise? Quantifying the performance of large language models in the translation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). 机器翻译能匹配人类的专业知识吗?量化大型语言模型在翻译患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)中的表现。
IF 2.9 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-25 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00926-w
Sheng-Chieh Lu, Cai Xu, Manraj Kaur, Maria Orlando Edelen, Andrea Pusic, Chris Gibbons

Background: The rise in artificial intelligence tools, especially those competent at language interpretation and translation, enables opportunities to enhance patient-centered care. One might be the ability to rapidly and inexpensively create accurate translations of English language patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to facilitate global uptake. Currently, it is unclear if machine translation (MT) tools can produce sufficient translation quality for this purpose.

Methodology: We used Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-4, GPT-3.5, and Google Translate to translate the English versions of selected scales from the Breast-Q and Face-Q, two widely used PROMs assessing outcomes following breast and face reconstructive surgery, respectively. We used MT to forward and back translate the scales from English into Arabic, Vietnamese, Italian, Hungarian, Malay, and Dutch. We compared translation quality using the Metrics for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit Ordering (METEOR). We compared the scores between different translation versions using the Kruskal-Wallis test or analysis of variance as appropriate.

Results: In forward translations, the METEOR scores significantly varied depending on target languages for all MT tools (p < 0.001), with GPT-4 having the highest scores in most languages. We detected significantly different scores among translators for all languages (p < .05), except for Italian (p = 0.59). In backward translations, MTs (GPT-4: 0.81 ± 0.10; GPT-3.5: 0.78 ± 0.12; Google Translate: 0.80 ± 0.06) received higher or compatible scores to human translations (0.76 ± 0.11) for all languages. The differences in backward translation scores by different forward translators were significant for all languages (p < 0.01; except for Italian, p = 0.2). The scores between different languages were also significantly different for all translators (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that large language models provide high-quality PROM translations to support human translations to reduce costs. However, substituting human translation with MT is not advisable at the current stage.

背景:人工智能工具的兴起,特别是那些能够胜任语言口译和翻译的工具,为加强以患者为中心的护理提供了机会。一个可能是能够快速和低成本地创建英语患者报告结果测量(PROMs)的准确翻译,以促进全球采用。目前,机器翻译(MT)工具是否能够产生足够的翻译质量尚不清楚。方法:我们使用生成预训练转换器(GPT)-4、GPT-3.5和谷歌Translate来翻译从breast - q和face - q中选择的量表的英文版本,这两个广泛使用的PROMs分别评估乳房和面部重建手术后的结果。我们使用MT将量表从英语向前和向后翻译成阿拉伯语、越南语、意大利语、匈牙利语、马来语和荷兰语。我们使用带有显式排序的翻译评价指标(METEOR)来比较翻译质量。我们使用Kruskal-Wallis检验或方差分析来比较不同翻译版本之间的分数。结果:在正向翻译中,所有机器翻译工具的METEOR得分都因目标语言的不同而有显著差异(p)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,大型语言模型提供了高质量的PROM翻译,以支持人工翻译,从而降低成本。但是,在现阶段,用机器翻译代替人工翻译是不可取的。
{"title":"Can machine translation match human expertise? Quantifying the performance of large language models in the translation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).","authors":"Sheng-Chieh Lu, Cai Xu, Manraj Kaur, Maria Orlando Edelen, Andrea Pusic, Chris Gibbons","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00926-w","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00926-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rise in artificial intelligence tools, especially those competent at language interpretation and translation, enables opportunities to enhance patient-centered care. One might be the ability to rapidly and inexpensively create accurate translations of English language patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to facilitate global uptake. Currently, it is unclear if machine translation (MT) tools can produce sufficient translation quality for this purpose.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We used Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-4, GPT-3.5, and Google Translate to translate the English versions of selected scales from the Breast-Q and Face-Q, two widely used PROMs assessing outcomes following breast and face reconstructive surgery, respectively. We used MT to forward and back translate the scales from English into Arabic, Vietnamese, Italian, Hungarian, Malay, and Dutch. We compared translation quality using the Metrics for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit Ordering (METEOR). We compared the scores between different translation versions using the Kruskal-Wallis test or analysis of variance as appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In forward translations, the METEOR scores significantly varied depending on target languages for all MT tools (p < 0.001), with GPT-4 having the highest scores in most languages. We detected significantly different scores among translators for all languages (p < .05), except for Italian (p = 0.59). In backward translations, MTs (GPT-4: 0.81 ± 0.10; GPT-3.5: 0.78 ± 0.12; Google Translate: 0.80 ± 0.06) received higher or compatible scores to human translations (0.76 ± 0.11) for all languages. The differences in backward translation scores by different forward translators were significant for all languages (p < 0.01; except for Italian, p = 0.2). The scores between different languages were also significantly different for all translators (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that large language models provide high-quality PROM translations to support human translations to reduce costs. However, substituting human translation with MT is not advisable at the current stage.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"94"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12297096/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144709155","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 the QoLISSY 0-4 questionnaire: a health-related quality of life tool for young children with short stature. QoLISSY 0-4问卷的开发:矮小儿童健康相关生活质量工具。
IF 2.9 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-07-25 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00925-x
Adekunle Adedeji, Stefanie Witt, Julia Quitmann

Short stature in children aged 0-4 years presents unique physical, social, and emotional challenges that significantly impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The QoLISSY 0-4 questionnaire was developed as a Patient Reported Outcome measure (PROMS) to address the absence of an age-specific, condition-focused HRQoL assessment tool for this population. A mixed-method approach was employed to adapt the original QoLISSY questionnaire for children aged 5-18. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 parents of children diagnosed with short-stature conditions, including achondroplasia, small for gestational age, growth hormone deficiency, and Silver-Russell Syndrome. Cognitive debriefing sessions and iterative feedback guided the development of new items tailored to the needs of children aged 0-4. Pilot testing involved 20 parents, who evaluated the questionnaire's clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. The development process yielded an 8-domain, 55-item questionnaire addressing physical health, social interactions, emotions, coping mechanisms, medical care, future concerns, and parental impact. Cognitive debriefing results indicated high item clarity (100%), relevance (93%), and importance (94%), with parents confirming that the questionnaire effectively captured their child's HRQoL experiences. The QoLISSY 0-4 questionnaire provides a tailored, parent-reported tool for assessing HRQoL in children aged 0-4 with short stature. Its development reflects a rigorous, participant-informed process ensuring its relevance and usability. Future validation studies will explore its cross-cultural applicability and psychometric properties to establish its utility in research and clinical settings.

0-4岁儿童身材矮小带来独特的身体、社会和情感挑战,显著影响健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)。QoLISSY 0-4问卷是作为患者报告结果测量(PROMS)开发的,以解决缺乏针对该人群的年龄特异性、以病情为重点的HRQoL评估工具的问题。采用混合方法对原QoLISSY问卷进行改编,适用于5-18岁儿童。对24名被诊断为身材矮小的儿童的父母进行了定性访谈,包括软骨发育不全、小于胎龄、生长激素缺乏症和银罗素综合征。认知汇报会议和迭代反馈指导了针对0-4岁儿童需求的新项目的开发。试点测试涉及20名家长,他们评估问卷的清晰度、相关性和全面性。开发过程产生了一份8域、55项的问卷,涉及身体健康、社会互动、情绪、应对机制、医疗保健、未来关注和父母影响。认知汇报结果表明,问卷的清晰度(100%)、相关性(93%)和重要性(94%)较高,家长确认问卷有效地捕捉了他们孩子的HRQoL体验。QoLISSY 0-4问卷提供了一个量身定制的、由家长报告的工具,用于评估0-4岁身材矮小儿童的HRQoL。它的发展反映了一个严格的、参与者知情的过程,确保了它的相关性和可用性。未来的验证研究将探索其跨文化适用性和心理测量特性,以确定其在研究和临床环境中的效用。
{"title":"Development of the QoLISSY 0-4 questionnaire: a health-related quality of life tool for young children with short stature.","authors":"Adekunle Adedeji, Stefanie Witt, Julia Quitmann","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00925-x","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41687-025-00925-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Short stature in children aged 0-4 years presents unique physical, social, and emotional challenges that significantly impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The QoLISSY 0-4 questionnaire was developed as a Patient Reported Outcome measure (PROMS) to address the absence of an age-specific, condition-focused HRQoL assessment tool for this population. A mixed-method approach was employed to adapt the original QoLISSY questionnaire for children aged 5-18. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 parents of children diagnosed with short-stature conditions, including achondroplasia, small for gestational age, growth hormone deficiency, and Silver-Russell Syndrome. Cognitive debriefing sessions and iterative feedback guided the development of new items tailored to the needs of children aged 0-4. Pilot testing involved 20 parents, who evaluated the questionnaire's clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. The development process yielded an 8-domain, 55-item questionnaire addressing physical health, social interactions, emotions, coping mechanisms, medical care, future concerns, and parental impact. Cognitive debriefing results indicated high item clarity (100%), relevance (93%), and importance (94%), with parents confirming that the questionnaire effectively captured their child's HRQoL experiences. The QoLISSY 0-4 questionnaire provides a tailored, parent-reported tool for assessing HRQoL in children aged 0-4 with short stature. Its development reflects a rigorous, participant-informed process ensuring its relevance and usability. Future validation studies will explore its cross-cultural applicability and psychometric properties to establish its utility in research and clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"95"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12297059/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144709216","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
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
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