Patient-Centered Item Selection for a New Preference-Based Generic Health Status Instrument: CS-Base

Clinical Patient-Relevant Outcome Domains for Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-A Scoping Review and Expert Panels

Large variation exists in the monitoring of clinical outcome domains in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS). Furthermore, it is unclear which outcome domains are important from the PSPS patient's perspective. The study objectives were to identify patient-relevant outcome domains for PSPS and to establish a PSPS outcomes framework. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies reporting views or preferences of PSPS patients on outcome domains. The Arksey and O'Malley framework was followed to identify outcome domains. An expert panel rated the domains based on the importance for PSPS patients they have treated. A framework of relevant outcome domains was established using the selected outcome domains by the expert panel. No studies were found for PSPS type 1. Five studies with 77 PSPS type 2 patients were included for further analysis. Fourteen outcome domains were identified. An expert panel, including 27 clinical experts, reached consensus on the domains pain, daily activities, perspective of life, social participation, mobility, mood, self-reliance, and sleep. Eleven domains were included in the PSPS type 2 outcomes framework. This framework is illustrative of a more holistic perspective and should be used to improve the evaluation of care for PSPS type 2 patients. Further research is needed on the prioritization of relevant outcome domains.

Different Frameworks, Similar Results? Head-to-Head Comparison of the Generic Preference-Based Health-Outcome Measures CS-Base and EQ-5D-5L

OBJECTIVE

We compared two generic, preference-based health-outcome measures: the novel patient-centered Château-Santé Base (CS-Base), entailing a multi-attribute preference response framework, and the widely used EQ-5D-5L, regarding effects of different measurement frameworks and different descriptive systems.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study using a random sample of patients (3019 reached, 1988 included) in the USA with various health conditions. The CS-Base (12 attributes, each with four levels), EQ-5D-5L and the 5D-4L (an ad hoc, multi-attribute preference response-based measure that includes five attributes similar to the EQ-5D-5L, but with four levels) were used as health-outcome measures. We compared the proportions of problems reported on health attributes, statistical robustness and face validity of coefficients, attribute importance, differentiation between health states based on health-state values obtained with these measures, and user experience.

RESULTS

All the CS-Base and 5D-4L coefficients had logical orders and significant differences from the reference level (p < 0.001). Substantial differences were observed in the CS-Base and 5D-4L coefficients between all levels on all attributes, while subtle differences were seen in those of the EQ-5D-5L. Attribute importance of usual (daily) activities were lowest or second lowest in all the three health-outcome measures. Attributes with the highest importance in the CS-Base, 5D-4L, and EQ-5D-5L were respectively mobility, anxiety/depression, and pain/discomfort. Four attributes are similar between the CS-Base and EQ-5D-5L, eight are exclusive to CS-Base. Of the eight, vision and hearing had the highest importance. Health-state values showed a smoother distribution with minimal discontinuity in the CS-Base and EQ-5D-5L than in the 5D-4L. In user experience evaluation, both CS-Base and the 5D-4L showed mean scores above 50 (indicating positive evaluation) in terms of the description of health and ease of understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that CS-Base and 5D-4L, which are grounded in the multi-attribute preference response framework, produced statistically robust coefficients, with better face validity than those for the EQ-5D-5L. CS-Base and the EQ-5D-5L outperformed the 5D-4L in differentiating between health states. Notwithstanding differences in content, measurement frameworks, and estimated coefficients, the computed health-state values were similar between CS-Base and EQ-5D-5L.

Assessing the Content Validity of Preference-Based Measures in Cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the content validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based measures (PBMs) with patients treated for cancer, evaluated against 10 Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity, to best inform measurement strategies regarding the use of PBMs in oncology development programs and real-world applications.

METHODS

Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients who received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom (n = 47) and the United States (n = 49). During the interview, patients completed 3 generic PBMs (EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure-Short Form, Château Santé Base) and 2 condition-specific PBMs (Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension [FACT-8D]). Interviews were conducted via teleconference, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using thematic and content analysis methods.

RESULTS

Condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Overall, the FACT-8D was evaluated as holding the best content validity in terms of relevancy, and the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure-Short Form received the most favorable evaluation of relevancy for generic PBMs. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, with all suggested by patients to be missing concepts. The EQ-5D-5L was evaluated best in terms of comprehensibility. This was followed by the Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension and FACT-8D; both received similar evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

All measures were generally seen by patients as adequate in capturing appropriate aspects of health-related quality of life for measuring cancer outcomes, although together condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Further health-related quality of life instrument development is encouraged, particularly with regard to the longer-term detrimental impacts of cancer and treatment side effects. Other developments could include new cancer-specific tools inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items.

From simple to even simpler, but not too simple: a head-to-head comparison of the Better-Worse and Drop-Down methods for measuring patient health status

BACKGROUND

We recently developed a novel, preference-based method (Better-Worse, BW) for measuring health status, expressed as a single metric value. We have since expanded it by developing the Drop-Down (DD) method. This article presents a head-to-head comparison of these two methods. We explored user feasibility, interpretability and statistics of the estimated coefficients, and distribution of the computed health-state values.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among patients with various diseases in the USA. The BW and DD methods were applied in the two arms of the study, albeit in reverse order. In both arms, patients first performed a descriptive task (Task 1) to rate their own health status according to the 12 items (each with 4 levels) in the CS-Base health-outcome instrument. They then performed Task 2, in which they expressed preferences for health states by the two methods. We then estimated coefficients for all levels of each item using logistic regression and used these to compute values for health states.

RESULTS

Our total sample comprised 1,972 patients. Completion time was < 2 min for both methods. Both methods were scored as easy to perform. All DD coefficients were highly significant from the reference level (P < 0.001). For BW, however, only the second-level coefficient of "Cognition" was significantly different (P = 0.026). All DD coefficients were more precise with narrower confidence intervals than those of the BW method.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the BW and DD are novel methods that are easy to apply. The DD method outperformed the BW method in terms of the precision of produced coefficients. Due to its task, it is free from a specific distorting factor that was observed for the BW method.

Health Status of US Patients With One or More Health Conditions: Using a Novel Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Producing Single Metric Measures

BACKGROUND

Most existing research studying health status impacted by morbidity has focused on a specific health condition, and most instruments used for measuring health status are neither patient-centered nor preference-based. This study aims to report on the health status of patients impacted by one or more health conditions, measured by a patient-centered and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with one or more health conditions in the United States. A novel generic, patient-centered, and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure: Château Santé-Base, was used to measure health status. Individual health state was expressed as a single metric number (value). We compared these health-state values between sociodemographic subgroups, between separate conditions, between groups with or without comorbidity, and between different combinations of multimorbidity.

RESULTS

The total sample comprised 3913 patients. Multimorbidity was present in 62% of the patients. The most prevalent health conditions were pain (50%), fatigue/sleep problems (40%), mental health problems (28%), respiratory diseases (22%), and diabetes (18%). The highest (best) and lowest health-state values were observed in patients with diabetes and mental health problems. Among combinations of multimorbidity, the lowest values were observed when mental health problems were involved, the second lowest values were observed when fatigue/sleep problems and respiratory diseases coexisted.

CONCLUSIONS

This study compared health status across various single, and multiple (multimorbidity and comorbidity) health conditions directly, based on single metric health-state values. The insights are valuable in clinical practice and policy-making.

Towards assessing the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses: most important items regarding prosthesis use in people with major unilateral upper limb absence-a Dutch national survey

PURPOSE

To determine which items regarding prosthesis use were considered most important by adults with major unilateral upper limb absence (ULA) and to develop a patient-reported outcome measure to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses: PUF-ULP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on a qualitative meta-synthesis combined with input from patients and clinicians a graphical diagram of 79 items related to prosthesis use was developed. Adults with ULA (N = 358; mean age = 55.4 ± 16.5 years; 52.0% male/40.8% female/7.3% unknown) selected their top-10 of most important items from this diagram. This study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register: NL7682.

RESULTS

Most selected items were "wearing comfort" (54.0% of cases), "grabbing, picking up, and holding" (34.3%), and "weight" (31.4%). All subpopulations (i.e. age, sex, origin of ULA, level of ULA, and prosthesis type), except multi-grip myoelectric hand prosthesis users (MHP), selected "wearing comfort" most. Nine items were included in the PUF-ULP: "wearing comfort," "functionality," "independence," "work, hobby, and household," "user-friendly," "life-like appearance," "phantom limb pain," "overuse complaints," and "reliability."

CONCLUSIONS

All prosthesis users, except MHP-users, considered wearing comfort most important, which might be of interest for future research and industry. The PUF-ULP can be used to reflect the match between users and their prostheses.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAll persons with upper limb absence, except multi-grip myoelectric hand prosthesis users, considered "wearing comfort" most important regarding prosthesis use, which highlights that prosthesis wearing comfort deserves more attention in future research to increase the value placed by the user on their upper limb prosthesis.Regarding prosthesis use, men considered "ease of control" more important compared to the overall population, while women considered "independence," "household," "life-like appearance," "overuse complaints," and "anonymity" more important.Persons with a mono- or multi-grip myoelectric upper limb prosthesis rated function-related items as more important compared to the overall population, while persons with a passive/cosmetic prosthesis rated comfort-related and appearance-related items as more important.The newly developed measurement tool, also called the PUF-ULP, provides a single score that represents the match between the user and their upper limb prosthesis.

A Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Childhood Cancer

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical work and research to capture the subjective experiences of childhood cancer patients and survivors. PROs encompass content domains relevant and important to this population, including health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL), symptoms, and functional status. To inform future efforts in the application of PRO measures, this review describes the existing generic and cancer-specific PRO measures for pediatric cancer populations and summarizes their characteristics, available language translations, content coverage, and measurement properties into tables for clinicians and researchers to reference before choosing a PRO measure that suits their purpose. We have identified often unreported measurement properties that could provide evidence about the clinical utility of the PRO measures. Routine PRO assessment in pediatric cancer care offers opportunities to facilitate clinical decision-making and improve quality of care for these patients. However, we suggest that before implementing PRO measures into research or clinical care, the psychometric properties and content coverage of the PRO measures must be considered to ensure that PRO measures are appropriately assessing the intended construct in childhood cancer patients.

An overview of the time trade-off method: concept, foundation, and the evaluation of distorting factors in putting a value on health

INTRODUCTION

Preference-based instruments measuring health status express the value of specific health states in a single number. One method used is time trade-off (TTO). Health-status values are key elements in calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and are pertinent for resource allocation. Since they are used in economic evaluations of healthcare, searching for a theoretical foundation of TTO in economics is justified.

AREA COVERED

This paper provides an overview of TTO, including its relation to economic theory, and discusses biases and distortions, compiled from recent and older research. Inconsistencies between TTO and random utility theory were detected; The TTO is confounded by time preferences and by respondents' life expectancies. TTO is cognitively challenging, therefore guidance during the interviews is needed, producing interview effects. TTO does not measure one thing at a time, nor are the values independent of other states that are being valued in the same task. That is, TTO does not exhibit theoretical measurement properties such as unidimensionality and the invariance principle.

EXPERT OPINION

We conclude that the TTO may be a pragmatic method of eliciting health state values, but the limitations in regard to measurement theory and practical elicitation problems makes it prone to inconsistencies and arbitrariness.

A Scoping Review of Key Health Items in Self-Report Instruments Used Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

The overall aim of this scoping review of the literature is twofold: (1) to provide an overview of all instruments that have been used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after solid organ transplantation and (2) to provide a list of health items they include to support future studies on the development of a new-generation HRQoL instrument. All studies that administered any form of HRQoL instrument to post-transplant solid organ recipients were identified in a comprehensive search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Web of Science, with a cut-off date of May 2018. The search used various combinations of the following keywords: lung, heart, liver, kidney, or pancreas transplantation; quality of life; well-being; patient-reported outcome; instrument; questionnaire; and health survey. In total, 8013 distinct publications were identified and 1218 of these were selected for review. Among the instruments applied, 53 measured generic, 51 organ-specific, 271 domain-specific, and 43 transplant-specific HRQoL. A total of 78 distinct health items grouped into 16 sub-domains were identified and depicted graphically. The majority of publications did not report a logical rationale for the choice of specific HRQoL instrument. The most commonly used types of instruments were generic health instruments, followed by domain-specific instruments. Despite the availability of transplant-specific instruments, few studies applied these types of instruments. Based on the 78 items, further research is planned to develop a patient-centered, transplant-specific HRQoL instrument that is concise, easy to apply (mobile application), and specifically related to the health issues of solid organ recipients.