1
|
Jung A, Challoumas D, Pagels L, Armijo-Olivo S, Braun T, Luedtke K. Guidelines for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review. BMJ Evid Based Med 2024:bmjebm-2023-112681. [PMID: 38782559 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112681] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/07/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objectives of this scoping review were to provide an overview of existing guidelines for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), review them for comprehensiveness and clarity and provide recommendations for their use based on the goals of the instrument developers. DESIGN Scoping review. METHODS A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo and Google Scholar up to 2 June 2023 to identify guidelines for the development and validation of PROMs. Screening of records and reports as well as data extraction were performed by two reviewers. To assess the comprehensiveness of the included guidelines, a mapping synthesis was performed and steps to develop and validate a measurement instrument outlined in the included guidelines were mapped to an a priori framework including 20 steps, which was based on the guideline by de Vet et al. RESULTS A total of 40 guidelines were included. Statistical advice (at least partially) was provided in 98% of the guidelines (39/40) and 88% (35/40) of the guidelines included examples for steps required to develop and validate PROMs. However, 78% (31/40) of the guidelines were not comprehensive and two essential steps in PROM development ('consideration and elaboration of the measurement model' and 'responsiveness') were not included in 80% and 72% of the guidelines, respectively. Three guidelines included all 20 steps and six included almost all steps (≥90% of steps) for developing and validating a PROM. DISCUSSION Most guidelines on PROM development and validation do not appear to be comprehensive, and some crucial steps are missing in most guidelines. Nevertheless, for some purposes of PROMs, many guidelines provide helpful advice and support. CONCLUSION At least 15 guidelines may be recommended, including three comprehensive guidelines that can be recommended for the development and validation of PROMs for most purposes (eg, to discriminate between subjects with a particular condition and subjects without that condition, to evaluate the effects of treatments (between a pre and post time-points) or to evaluate a status quo).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andres Jung
- Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, Pain and Exercise Research Luebeck (P.E.R.L), Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
- Department of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Dimitris Challoumas
- Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Larissa Pagels
- Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, Pain and Exercise Research Luebeck (P.E.R.L), Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Susan Armijo-Olivo
- Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, Hochschule Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany
- Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation Research Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Tobias Braun
- Department of Applied Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Hochschule für Gesundheit Bochum, Bochum, Germany
- Department of Health, HSD Hochschule Dopfer GmbH, Köln, Germany
| | - Kerstin Luedtke
- Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, Pain and Exercise Research Luebeck (P.E.R.L), Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
- Center of Brain, Behavior and Metabolism (CBBM), Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Battershell M, Vu H, Callander EJ, Slavin V, Carrandi A, Teede H, Bull C. Development, women-centricity and psychometric properties of maternity patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A systematic review. Women Birth 2023; 36:e563-e573. [PMID: 37316400 DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2023.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2023] [Revised: 05/04/2023] [Accepted: 05/25/2023] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Measuring maternity care outcomes based on what women value is critical to promoting woman-centred maternity care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are instruments that enable service users to assess healthcare service and system performance. AIM To identify and critically appraise the risk of bias, woman-centricity (content validity) and psychometric properties of maternity PROMs published in the scientific literature. METHODS MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and Embase were systematically searched for relevant records between 01/01/2010 and 07/10/2021. Included articles underwent risk of bias, content validity and psychometric properties assessments in line with COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidance. PROM results were summarised according to language subgroups and an overall recommendation for use was determined. FINDINGS Forty-four studies reported on the development and psychometric evaluation of 9 maternity PROMs, grouped into 32 language subgroups. Risk of bias assessments for the PROM development and content validity showed inadequate or doubtful methodological quality. Internal consistency reliability, hypothesis testing (for construct validity), structural validity and test-retest reliability varied markedly in sufficiency and evidence quality. No PROMs received a level 'A' recommendation, required for real-world use. CONCLUSION Maternity PROMs identified in this systematic review had poor quality evidence for their measurement properties and lacked sufficient content validity, indicating a lack of woman-centricity in instrument development. Future research should prioritise women's voices in deciding what is relevant, comprehensive and comprehensible to measure, as this will impact overall validity and reliability and facilitate real-world use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Battershell
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, VIC, Australia
| | - H Vu
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, VIC, Australia
| | - E J Callander
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, VIC, Australia
| | - V Slavin
- Women-Newborn-Childrens Services, Gold Coast Health, QLD, Australia; School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, QLD, Australia
| | - A Carrandi
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, VIC, Australia
| | - H Teede
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, VIC, Australia; Endocrinology and Diabetes Units, Monash Health, VIC, Australia
| | - C Bull
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Terwee CB, Elders PJM, Blom MT, Beulens JW, Rolandsson O, Rogge AA, Rose M, Harman N, Williamson PR, Pouwer F, Mokkink LB, Rutters F. Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes: what and how to measure? A narrative review. Diabetologia 2023; 66:1357-1377. [PMID: 37222772 PMCID: PMC10317894 DOI: 10.1007/s00125-023-05926-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2022] [Accepted: 03/03/2023] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline B Terwee
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Methodology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Petra J M Elders
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Methodology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of General Practice, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marieke T Blom
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Methodology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Joline W Beulens
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Olaf Rolandsson
- Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Alize A Rogge
- Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Matthias Rose
- Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Nicola Harman
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Paula R Williamson
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Frans Pouwer
- Steno Diabetes Center Odense, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lidwine B Mokkink
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Methodology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Femke Rutters
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Langendoen-Gort M, Groeneveld L, Prinsen CAC, Beulens JW, Elders PJM, Halperin I, Mukerji G, Terwee CB, Rutters F. Patient-reported outcome measures for assessing health-related quality of life in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 2022; 23:931-977. [PMID: 35779199 PMCID: PMC9515038 DOI: 10.1007/s11154-022-09734-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are important tools to assess outcomes relevant to patients, with Health-Related Quality Of Life (HRQOL) as an important construct to be measured. Many different HRQOL PROMs are used in the type 2 diabetes field, however a complete overview of these PROMs is currently lacking. We therefore aimed to systematically describe and classify the content of all PROMs that have specifically been developed or validated to measure (aspects of) HRQOL in people with type 2 diabetes. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE until 31 December 2021. Studies on the development or validation of a PROM measuring HRQOL, or aspects of HRQOL, in people with type 2 diabetes were included. Title and abstract and full-text screening were conducted by two independent researchers and data extraction was performed independently by one of the researchers. Data were extracted on language in which the PROM was developed, target population, construct(s) being measured, names of (sub)scales and number of items per (sub)scale. In addition, all PROMs and subscales were classified according to specific aspects of HRQOL based on the Wilson & Cleary model (symptom status, functional status, general health perceptions) to aid researchers in PROM selection. In total 220 studies were identified that developed or validated PROMs that measure (aspects of) HRQOL in people with type 2 diabetes. Of the 116 unique HRQOL PROMs, 91 (of the subscales) measured symptom status, 60 measured functional status and 26 measured general health perceptions. In addition, 16 of the PROMs (subscales) measured global quality of life. 61 of the 116 PROMs (subscales) also include characteristics of the individual (e.g. aspects of personality, coping) or environment (e.g. social or financial support) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs, e.g. measure of a patient's perception of their personal experience of the healthcare they have received, e.g. treatment satisfaction), which are not part of the HRQOL construct. Only 9 of the 116 PROMs measure all aspects of HRQOL based on the Wilson & Cleary model. Finally, 8 of the 116 PROMs stating to measure HRQOL, measured no HRQOL construct. In conclusion, a large number of PROMs are available for people with type 2 diabetes, which intend to measure (aspects of) HRQOL. These PROMs measure a large variety of (sub)constructs, which are not all HRQOL constructs, with a small amount of PROMs not measuring HRQOL at all. There is a need for consensus on which aspects of HRQOL should be measured in people with type 2 diabetes and which PROMs to use in research and daily practice. PROSPERO: CRD42017071012. COMET database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/956 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marlous Langendoen-Gort
- General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lenka Groeneveld
- Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cecilia A C Prinsen
- Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joline W Beulens
- Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Diabetes & Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Petra J M Elders
- General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Diabetes & Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ilana Halperin
- Department of Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, King's College Circle, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Geetha Mukerji
- Department of Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, King's College Circle, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Women's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Caroline B Terwee
- Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Femke Rutters
- Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
- Amsterdam Public Health, Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Diabetes & Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|