A Randomized Multicenter Trial to Evaluate Simple Utility Elicitation Techniques in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Plain Language vs Standard Format for Youth Understanding of COVID-19 Recommendations: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

To ensure that youths can make informed decisions about their health, it is important that health recommendations be presented for understanding by youths.

Objective

To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of youths provided with a digital plain language recommendation (PLR) format vs the original standard language version (SLV) of a health recommendation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized clinical trial included individuals from any country who were 15 to 24 years of age, had internet access, and could read and understand English. The trial was conducted from May 27 to July 6, 2022, and included a qualitative component.

Interventions

An online platform was used to randomize youths in a 1:1 ratio to an optimized digital PLR or SLV format of 1 of 2 health recommendations related to the COVID-19 vaccine; youth-friendly PLRs were developed in collaboration with youth partners and advisors.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to 7 comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior. After completion of the survey, participants indicated their interest in completing a 1-on-1 semistructured interview to reflect on their preferred digital format (PLR or SLV) and their outcome assessment survey response.

Results

Of the 268 participants included in the final analysis, 137 were in the PLR group (48.4% female) and 131 were in the SLV group (53.4% female). Most participants (233 [86.9%]) were from North and South America. No significant difference was found in understanding scores between the PLR and SLV groups (mean difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 11.6%; P = .11). Participants found the PLR to be more accessible and usable (mean difference, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.05-0.63) and satisfying (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73) and had a stronger preference toward the PLR (mean difference, 4.8; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1 [4.0 indicated a neutral response]) compared with the SLV. No significant difference was found in intended behavior (mean difference, 0.22 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.74). Interviewees (n = 14) agreed that the PLR was easier to understand and generated constructive feedback to further improve the digital PLR.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the SLV, the PLR did not produce statistically significant findings in terms of understanding scores. Youths ranked it higher in terms of accessibility, usability, and satisfaction, suggesting that the PLR may be preferred for communicating health recommendations to youths. The interviews provided suggestions for further improving PLR formats.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05358990.

Knowledge mobilization activities to support decision-making by youth, parents, and adults using a systematic and living map of evidence and recommendations on COVID-19: protocol for three randomized controlled trials and qualitative user-experience studies

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public's understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population's results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990 . Registered on May 3, 2022.

New methods facilitated the process of prioritizing questions and health outcomes in guideline development

BACKGROUND

Health guideline development requires sequential prioritization of the guideline topic, questions, and health outcomes. In this paper we report on new approaches for prioritizing questions and outcomes in guidelines.

METHODS

Ten guideline panels on venous thromboembolism rated potential guideline questions on a 9-point scale according to their overall importance and 6 criteria: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. We randomized panelists to rate one potential question with and without the 6 criteria. Panelists rated importance of outcomes, defined with health outcome descriptors (HODs), using a 9-point scale, and health utility of outcomes on a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

Of 469 potential questions identified, 72.5% were rated as important but not of high priority, and 25.4% as high priority. Each criterion was significantly associated with the overall importance rating. The overall importance rating means were 5.96 (SD 2.38) and 6.53 (SD 2.45) (P = 0.25) for those randomized to rate questions with and without the criteria, respectively. The mean importance rating for 121 outcomes was 6.01 (SD 1.25), with 35.5% rated as critical for decision-making. Panelists provided health utility ratings for 127 outcomes, with a minimum mean rating of 0.12 (SD 0.10) and maximum of 0.91 (SD 0.15).

CONCLUSION

Our structured process provided information to help explain perspectives of question importance, to facilitate panels' outcome prioritization, and to facilitate decision-making in guideline development.

A modeling approach to derive baseline risk estimates for GRADE recommendations:Concepts, development, and results of its application to the American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines on prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to develop an approach that can be used where baseline risk estimates that are directly applicable to prioritized patient-important outcomes are not available from published studies.

STUDY DESIGN

The McMaster University GRADE Centre and the ASH guideline panel for the prevention of VTE in surgical patients developed a modeling approach based on explicit assumptions about the distribution of symptoms, anatomical location, and severity of VTE events.

RESULTS

We applied the approach to derive modeled estimates of baseline risk. These estimates were used to calculated absolute measures of anticipated effects that informed the discussion of the evidence and the formulation of 30 guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our approach can assist guideline developers facing a lack of information about baseline risk estimates that directly apply to outcomes of interest. The use of modeled estimates increases transparency in the process and makes the baseline risk used by guideline experts explicit during their decision-making.

Development and application of health outcome descriptors facilitated decision-making in the production of practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Stakeholders involved in developing recommendations need to have a common understanding of health outcomes and the perspective of affected individuals. In this paper we report on the development and application of health outcome descriptors (HODs) to inform decision-making by panels developing guideline recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Ten American Society of Hematology guideline panels addressing the management of venous thromboembolism developed HODs, rated their importance and health utility, applied them to prioritize outcomes, and to balance potential benefits and harms to formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

It was feasible to involve 18 panelists in developing 127 HODs. There was high agreement (82%) across the ten panels about outcomes perceived as critical or important for decision-making. Panelists' utility ratings of the outcomes were strongly correlated with panelists' outcome importance ratings (Pearson's r=-0.88). HODs were incorporated into Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks to support a shared understanding of health outcomes in panel deliberations.

CONCLUSION

HODs serve as a valuable tool to promote an explicit, common understanding of health outcomes during clinical guideline development and across different stakeholders. They are helpful across multiple steps of guideline development to facilitate panels' judgements, aiming to avoid variable implicit interpretations of health outcomes.

Methodology for the American Society of Hematology VTE guidelines: current best practice, innovations, and experiences

BACKGROUND

Methods for the development of clinical guidelines have advanced dramatically over the past 2 decades to strive for trustworthiness, transparency, user-friendliness, and rigor. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) have followed these advances, together with application of methodological innovations.

OBJECTIVE

In this article, we describe methods and methodological innovations as a model to inform future guideline enterprises by ASH and others to achieve guideline standards. Methodological innovations introduced in the development of the guidelines aim to address current challenges in guideline development.

METHODS

We followed ASH policy for guideline development, which is based on the Guideline International Network (GIN)-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist and current best practices. Central coordination, specialist working groups, and expert panels were established for the development of 10 VTE guidelines. Methodological guidance resources were developed to guide the process across guidelines panels. A methods advisory group guided the development and implementation of methodological innovations to address emerging challenges and needs.

RESULTS

The complete set of VTE guidelines will include >250 recommendations. Methodological innovations include the use of health-outcome descriptors, online voting with guideline development software, modeling of pathways for diagnostic questions, application of expert evidence, and a template manuscript for publication of ASH guidelines. These methods advance guideline development standards and have already informed other ASH guideline projects.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of the ASH VTE guidelines followed rigorous methods and introduced methodological innovations during guideline development, striving for the highest possible level of trustworthiness, transparency, user-friendliness, and rigor.

"Like No One Is Listening to Me": A Qualitative Study of Patient-Provider Discordance Between Global Assessments of Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives and experiences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose assessments of their disease differ from those of their rheumatology care provider.

METHODS

A total of 20 adult RA patients with patient-provider discordance at their most recent rheumatology appointment (within 4 weeks) were recruited. Discordance was defined by an absolute difference of 25 or more between patient and provider global assessments on a visual analog scale (VAS) of disease activity. For descriptive purposes, participants completed the Health Assessment Questionnaire II, pain VAS, and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 depression scale. Interviews were conducted in person and individually with each patient with a semistructured interview guide. Topics ranged widely, including participants' perspectives and experiences with living with RA, clinical disease assessments, patient-provider communication, and psychosocial or other needs. Data from the interviews were analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis.

RESULTS

Six major themes emerged from the patient interviews describing patient-provider discordance and disease assessment: being misunderstood by others, limitations of provider assessments, discrepancy with provider findings, inadequate active listening on the part of health care providers, unmet psychosocial needs, and lack of patient empowerment.

CONCLUSION

Patients described discordance in terms of symptom assessment and understanding how RA affects everyday life. Typical clinical assessments did not capture their experience. The resulting conceptual framework should inform future interventional studies seeking to enhance concordance of patient-physician communication and to optimize satisfaction with care and health-related quality-of-life outcomes for patients with RA.

A methodological analysis of the plastic surgery cost-utility literature using established guidelines

BACKGROUND

Cost-utility studies, common in medicine, are rare within plastic surgery despite their capability of measuring the value of procedures by considering the societal costs of improving quality of life. The objectives of this study were to analyze the design quality of the plastic surgery cost-utility literature and to identify areas of needed improvement for future studies.

METHODS

A scoring tool was constructed based on the Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. A PubMed search through October of 2012 was conducted for English-language plastic surgery utility studies. Articles were selected using two inclusion criteria and evaluated using the scoring tool.

RESULTS

A 9-point scoring tool was created, and 37 publications were selected. Their average score was 3 out of 9 points. Thirty studies (81 percent) used population preferences in utility measurements. Fifteen studies (41 percent) measured costs, but only four (11 percent) included indirect costs and only five (14 percent) applied discount rates to calculate the value of treatments over time. Three studies (8 percent) earned zero points. The highest scoring study earned 8 points.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified studies manifest the potential of cost-utility analyses in plastic surgery. Nonetheless, they are inconsistent in applying established cost-utility guidelines, especially in measuring costs and conducting recommended sensitivity analysis. Following this simple scoring tool can help future studies achieve some necessary improvements.

Blinded interpretation of study results can feasibly and effectively diminish interpretation bias

OBJECTIVE

Controversial and misleading interpretation of data from randomized trials is common. How to avoid misleading interpretation has received little attention. Herein, we describe two applications of an approach that involves blinded interpretation of the results by study investigators.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS

The approach involves developing two interpretations of the results on the basis of a blinded review of the primary outcome data (experimental treatment A compared with control treatment B). One interpretation assumes that A is the experimental intervention and another assumes that A is the control. After agreeing that there will be no further changes, the investigators record their decisions and sign the resulting document. The randomization code is then broken, the correct interpretation chosen, and the manuscript finalized. Review of the document by an external authority before finalization can provide another safeguard against interpretation bias.

RESULTS

We found the blinded preparation of a summary of data interpretation described in this article practical, efficient, and useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Blinded data interpretation may decrease the frequency of misleading data interpretation. Widespread adoption of blinded data interpretation would be greatly facilitated were it added to the minimum set of recommendations outlining proper conduct of randomized controlled trials (eg, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement).

Baseline comparison of three health utility measures and the feeling thermometer among participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes trial

Background

Health utility (HU) measures are used as overall measures of quality of life and to determine quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in economic analyses. We compared baseline values of three HUs including Short Form 6 Dimensions (SF-6D), and Health Utilities Index, Mark II and Mark III (HUI2 and HUI3) and the feeling thermometer (FT) among type 2 diabetes participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. We assessed relationships between HU and FT values and patient demographics and clinical variables.

Methods

ACCORD was a randomized clinical trial to test if intensive controls of glucose, blood pressure and lipids can reduce the risk of major cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in type 2 diabetes patients with high risk of CVD. The health-related quality of life (HRQOL) sub-study includes 2,053 randomly selected participants. Interclass correlations (ICCs) and agreement between measures by quartile were used to evaluate relationships between HU’s and the FT. Multivariable regression models specified relationships between patient variables and each HU and the FT.

Results

The ICCs were 0.245 for FT/SF-6D, 0.313 for HUI3/SF-6D, 0.437 for HUI2/SF-6D, 0.338 for FT/HUI2, 0.337 for FT/HUI3 and 0.751 for HUI2/HUI3 (P < 0.001 for all). Common classification by quartile was found for the majority (62%) of values between HUI2 and HUI3, which was significantly (P < 0.001) higher than between other HUs and the FT: SF-6D/HUI3 = 40.8%, SF-6D/HUI2 = 40.9%, FT/HUI3 = 35.0%, FT/HUI2 = 34.9%, and FT/SF-6D = 31.9%. Common classification was higher between SF-6D/HUI2 and SF-6D/HUI3 (P < 0.001) than between FT/SF-6D, FT/HUI2, and FT/HUI3. The mean difference in HU values per patient ranged from −0.024 ± 0.225 for SF-6D/ HUI3 to −0.124 ± 0.133 for SF-6D/HUI2. Regression models were significant; clinical and demographic variables explained 6.1% (SF-6D) to 7.7% (HUI3) of the variance in HUs.

Conclusions

The agreements between the different HUs were poor except for the two HUI measures; therefore HU values derived different measures may not be comparable. The FT had low agreement with HUs. The relationships between HUs and demographic and clinical measures demonstrate how severity of diabetes and other clinical and demographic factors are associated with HUs and FT measures.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000620

Evaluating patient values and preferences for thromboprophylaxis decision making during pregnancy: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women with prior venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at risk of recurrence. Low molecular weight heparin (LWMH) reduces the risk of pregnancy-related VTE. LMWH prophylaxis is, however, inconvenient, uncomfortable, costly, medicalizes pregnancy, and may be associated with increased risks of obstetrical bleeding. Further, there is uncertainty in the estimates of both the baseline risk of pregnancy-related recurrent VTE and the effects of antepartum LMWH prophylaxis. The values and treatment preferences of pregnant women, crucial when making recommendations for prophylaxis, are currently unknown. The objective of this study is to address this gap in knowledge.

METHODS

We will perform a multi-center cross-sectional interview study in Canada, USA, Norway and Finland. The study population will consist of 100 women with a history of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), and who are either pregnant, planning pregnancy, or may in the future consider pregnancy (women between 18 and 45 years). We will exclude individuals who are on full dose anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis, who have undergone surgical sterilization, or whose partners have undergone vasectomy. We will determine each participant's willingness to receive LMWH prophylaxis during pregnancy through direct choice exercises based on real life and hypothetical scenarios, preference-elicitation using a visual analog scale ("feeling thermometer"), and a probability trade-off exercise. The primary outcome will be the minimum reduction (threshold) in VTE risk at which women change from declining to accepting LMWH prophylaxis. We will explore possible determinants of this choice, including educational attainment, the characteristics of the women's prior VTE, and prior experience with LMWH. We will determine the utilities that women place on the burden of LMWH prophylaxis, pregnancy-related DVT, pregnancy-related PE and pregnancy-related hemorrhage. We will generate a "personalized decision analysis" using participants' utilities and their personalized risk of recurrent VTE as inputs to a decision analytic model. We will compare the personalized decision analysis to the participant's stated choice.

DISCUSSION

The preferences of pregnant women at risk of VTE with respect to the use of antithrombotic therapy remain unexplored. This research will provide explicit, quantitative expressions of women's valuations of health states related to recurrent VTE and its prevention with LMWH. This information will be crucial for both guideline developers and for clinicians.

Comparison of the construct validity and sensitivity to change of the visual analog scale and a modified rating scale as measures of patient global assessment in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Patient global assessment (PGA) is commonly measured using a visual analog scale (VAS). The VAS asks patients to integrate many dimensions of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) activity, yet its scope is poorly defined and its endpoints are vague. We investigated whether a modified Rating Scale that used marker states and more defined endpoints would provide a more valid measure of PGA.

METHODS

In our prospective longitudinal study, 164 patients with active RA rated their global arthritis activity using the VAS and Rating Scale before and after treatment. To compare construct validity, we correlated each score with 2 reference measures of RA activity, the 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and the physician global assessment, and examined how each measure was associated with different aspects of RA activity, including pain, functioning, and depressive symptoms, in multivariate regression analyses. We also examined sensitivity to change.

RESULTS

Both measures were correlated with the DAS28 (r = 0.39 for VAS; r = 0.35 for Rating Scale) and physician global assessment (r = 0.41 for VAS; r = 0.26 for Rating Scale) at the baseline visit. Pain and depressive symptoms had the strongest association with the VAS, while functional limitations and depressive symptoms had the strongest association with the Rating Scale. Residual analysis showed no differences in heterogeneity of patients' ratings. VAS was more sensitive to change than the Rating Scale (standardized response means of 0.55 and 0.45).

CONCLUSION

As measures of PGA, the VAS and Rating Scale had comparable construct validity, but differed in which aspects of arthritis activity influenced scores. VAS was more sensitive to change.

What makes individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease dissatisfied with their treatment?

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as therapeutics for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in randomized controlled trials, a number of studies have shown that a proportion of patients with GERD are not satisfied with their treatment. This article reviews the possible reasons why patients are dissatisfied with the way their disease is managed.

METHODS

Studies published between 1970 and 2007 were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, and the author's existing database. The 2708 publications were reviewed, and irrelevant ones were excluded. Eleven studies were found to be appropriate for use in this review.

RESULTS

Patients who are given prescriptions for PPIs tend to be more satisfied than those given H(2)-receptor antagonists. Partial responders are likely to be more dissatisfied than patients whose symptoms are fully resolved. A decrease in health-related quality of life is associated with greater dissatisfaction. Patients are more likely to be satisfied if they are taken seriously by their physician and if their symptoms are investigated. They are also more likely to be satisfied if the patient-physician consultation is interactive.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction is a complex issue that depends on many factors. Patient satisfaction can be influenced by treatment regimen, general level of well-being, the bedside manner of the physician, and the quality of patient-physician communication. Improvements in recognition of GERD can improve management of the disease as well as patient satisfaction with their care and treatment.

Selection of outcome measures for patients with hip fracture

In designing a study protocol relating to hip fracture treatment and outcomes, it is important to select appropriate outcome instruments. Before beginning the process of instrument selection, investigators must gain a comprehensive understanding of the condition of interest and have a thorough knowledge of the expected benefits and harms of the proposed intervention. Adequate evidence of an intervention's effectiveness includes indication of impact on the patient's health. We provide a brief discussion about different ways that health and health measurement have been defined, including the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF), health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and cost-to-benefit analyses. We outline important properties (reliability, validity, sensitivity to change, and responsiveness) that a measurement instrument must demonstrate before being considered an acceptable means to measure outcome. Potential outcome measures relevant to patients with hip fracture are summarized, and important points to consider in the selection of outcome measures for a hypothetical research question in a hip fracture population are discussed.

Values and preferences in oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation, physicians' and patients' perspectives: protocol for a two-phase study

Background

Oral anticoagulation prevents strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation but, for reasons that remain unclear, less than 40% of all patients with atrial fibrillation receive warfarin. The literature postulates that patient and clinician preferences may explain this low utilization.

Design

The proposed research seeks to answer the following questions: i) When assessed systematically, do patients' and clinicians' preferences explain the utilization of warfarin to prevent strokes associated with atrial fibrillation? ii) To what extent do patients' and clinicians' treatment preferences differ? iii) What factors explain any differences that exist in treatment preferences between patients and clinicians? To answer these questions we will conduct a two-phase study of patient and clinician preferences for health states and treatments. In the first phase of this study we will conduct structured interviews to determine their treatment preferences for warfarin vs. aspirin to prevent strokes associated with atrial fibrillation using the probability trade-off technique. In the same interview, we will conduct preference-elicitation exercises using the feeling thermometer to identify the utilities that patients place on taking medication (warfarin and aspirin), and on having a mild stroke, a severe stroke, and a major bleed. In the second phase of the study we will convene focus groups of clinicians and patients to explore their answers to the exercises in the first phase.

Discussion

This is a study of patient and clinician preferences for health states and treatments. Because of its clinical importance and our previous work in this area, we will conduct our study in the clinical context of the decision to use antithrombotic agents to reduce the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular chronic atrial fibrillation

Marker states and a health state prompt provide modest improvements in the reliability and validity of the standard gamble and rating scale in prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the combined effect of marker states and a prompt on the reliability and validity of direct utility assessment.

METHODS

In a structured interview, 141 prostate cancer (PC) patients provided rating scale (RS) and standard gamble (SG) utilities for their "own health" (RS-/SG-). Following self-completion of comparison instruments (two generic utility and one disease-specific psychometric), they answered a checklist of PC-related items (a prompt to consider self-health) and provided utilities for self-health and mild and severe PC marker states (RS+/SG+). The interview was repeated 5 weeks later, but without comparison instruments. Using Bayesian modeling, we computed and compared correlation coefficients to assess RS and SG test-retest reliability and validity and the effects of the prompt and marker states.

RESULTS

RS and SG had acceptable test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.57-0.63). The prompt and marker states decreased the reliability of the RS by 0.01 (from 0.58 to 0.57) but increased the reliability of the SG by 0.05 (from 0.58 to 0.63). The probability that the reliability of the SG+ was greater than that of the SG- was very high (0.96). Correlations with comparison instruments were higher by 0.01-0.06 for RS+ vs RS-, and higher by 0.03-0.06 for SG+ vs SG-. The probabilities that the prompt and marker states improved validity ranged from 0.55 to 0.74 (RS), and from 0.61 to 0.70 (SG).

CONCLUSIONS

A self-health description prompt and marker states modestly improved the reliability and validity of direct utility elicitation.

The standard gamble showed better construct validity than the time trade-off

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is little evidence for the relative cross-sectional validity of the standard gamble (SG) and time trade-off (TTO). We compared these preference-based instruments in patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).

METHODS

Patients rated their own health on the SG and TTO and completed the disease-specific IBS questionnaire, the Brief Pain Inventory, the SF-36, the Sickness Impact Profile, and a global rating of disease severity.

RESULTS

Mean scores of the 96 enrolled patients (mean age 39.5 years, 84.4% women) were 0.84 (standard deviation 0.16) for the SG and 0.76 (0.22) for the TTO. The correlation of the SG with the TTO was 0.36. For the SG, correlation coefficients with the IBS questionnaire domain scores ranged from 0.36 to 0.47, whereas those of the TTO were substantially lower (0.15-0.42). The SG also had higher correlations than the TTO with generic questionnaires (0.18-0.34 versus 0.13-0.26), Brief Pain Inventory (0.27 versus 0.11), global rating of disease severity (0.22 versus 0.10) as well as with SF-36-derived patient preferences (0.31-0.43 versus 0.27-0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

The higher correlations of the SG with validation measures indicate that the SG better reflects health-related quality of life and patient preferences compared to the TTO.

Application of generalizability theory confirmed lower reliability of the standard gamble than the feeling thermometer

OBJECTIVES

Recent studies suggest that rating clinical marker states (CMS) does not improve the measurement properties of the standard gamble (SG) and only slightly improves those of the feeling thermometer (FT). The poor intrarater (test-retest) reliability of CMS may explain their meager performance. Further, lack of interrater reliability may compromise the use of CMS in interpreting health state ratings. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of CMS ratings for the SG and the FT.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Two similar studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, n=91) and in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD, n=112) provided data for this analysis. Patients rated three different CMS (mild, moderate, and severe disease) twice several weeks apart. We used generalizability theory to calculate reliability coefficients.

RESULTS

Test-retest reliability for CMS ratings was higher for the FT compared to the SG (COPD: 0.86 vs. 0.67; GERD: 0.86 vs. 0.67). Interrater reliability was much higher for the FT compared to the SG (COPD: 0.78 vs. 0.46; GERD: 0.71 vs. 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the markedly poorer reliability of CMS for the SG than the FT is driven largely by poor interrater reliability.

The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (WPAI-GERD): responsiveness to change and English language validation

BACKGROUND

A validated productivity questionnaire, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (WPAI-GERD), exists for Swedish patients with GERD.

OBJECTIVE

To assess responsiveness to change of the WPAI-GERD and construct validity of the English language version.

METHODS

We used the WPAI-GERD in a before-after treatment clinical study of Canadian GERD patients with moderate or severe symptoms treated with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for 4 weeks. We measured productivity variables including GERD-specific absence from work, reduced productivity while at work and reduced productivity while carrying out regular daily activities other than work during the preceding week.

RESULTS

The analysis included 217 patients, of whom 71% (n = 153) were employed. Before treatment, employed patients reported an average 0.9 hours of absence from work due to GERD and 14.0% reduced work productivity (5.8 hours equivalent) in the previous week, as well as 21.0% reduced productivity in daily activities (all patients). After treatment, the corresponding figures decreased to 0.3 hours, 3.0% (1.1 hours equivalent) and 4.9%, respectively. Thus, the improvement (difference from start of treatment) in productivity was 0.6 hours (p = 0.011) for absence from work and 11.0% units (p < 0.001) for reduced work productivity (4.7 hours equivalent, p < 0.001). This translated into an avoided loss of work productivity of 5.3 hours in total on a weekly basis per employed patient. In addition, a 16.1% unit (p < 0.001) improvement for reduced productivity in activities was observed. Cross-sectional correlation coefficients of WPAI variables with symptoms (range 0.04-0.63) and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL; range 0.02-0.65) supported cross-sectional construct validity. Corresponding change score correlations between WPAI variables and HR-QOL (range 0.05-0.56) supported longitudinal construct validity of the WPAI-GERD while low change score correlations between productivity variables and relevant symptoms (range 0.06-0.34) did not.

CONCLUSION

The English version of the WPAI-GERD showed good cross-sectional construct validity, and results indicated that the WPAI-GERD is responsive to change. Although the results also indicated that longitudinal construct validity may be poor, the overall findings suggest that further study of the instrument remains warranted.

Systematic review: the impact of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease on work productivity

BACKGROUND

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease has wide-ranging effects on patients' lives.

AIM

To review systematically the effects of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease on work productivity.

METHODS

Studies of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and work productivity were identified in a systematic literature search and their results were valued in US dollars using the human capital method. Work productivity loss was defined as absence from work (absenteeism) plus reduced effectiveness while working (presenteeism).

RESULTS

Eight eligible studies were included. Reported work productivity loss among individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease ranged from 6% to 42% and was primarily because of presenteeism (6-40%) rather than absenteeism (<1% to 7%). Reported losses were greatest in patients experiencing sleep disturbance because of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, and lowest in individuals from the general population taking appropriate prescription medication. Work productivity impairment correlated with symptom severity and responded to acid-suppressive therapy. Assuming a 40-h working week and average wages in the US, the weekly mean productivity loss per employee with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease can be estimated between 2.4 (62 dollars) and 16.6 h (430 dollars), depending on the population studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease has a substantial impact on employee productivity, primarily by impairing productivity while working. Further studies are needed to confirm that this impact can be decreased by acid-suppressive therapy.

Validation of a symptom diary for patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Symptom diaries are potentially attractive but, because of concerns about patient compliance, they have had limited use in clinical trials. We assessed the validity and responsiveness of a symptom diary for patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

METHODS

We included 215 patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease after starting treatment for 4 weeks with 40 mg esomeprazole once daily. Patients recorded whether they experienced night-time heartburn (yes/no), the severity of daytime heartburn on a scale from 1 (no heartburn) to 4 (severe heartburn) and their antacid use. Patients also completed a number of disease-specific and preference-based Health-related Quality of Life questionnaires at baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

Consistent with a priori predictions, daytime heartburn showed moderate to strong correlations with the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire (0.36-0.67) and four scales of symptom severity (0.36-0.70) for baseline, follow-up and change scores, but low correlations with the Standard Gamble. Responsiveness of the daytime heartburn item was excellent with a mean change from baseline to follow-up of -1.3 (95% CI -1.4 to -1.1) and a standardized response mean of 1.33 while responsiveness of the daily antacid use item was moderate (mean change scores -1.8 tablets taken, 95% CI -2.3 to -1.3 and standardized response mean of 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

The excellent psychometric properties of this simple gastro-oesophageal reflux disease diary make it an attractive measure for future trials.

Do Clinical Marker States Improve Responsiveness and Construct Validity of the Standard Gamble and Feeling Thermometer: A Randomized Multi-Center Trial in Patients with Chronic Respiratory Disease

BACKGROUND

Optimizing the validity and responsiveness of utility measures will enhance their usefulness in randomized trials. We evaluated the impact of clinical marker state (CMS) rating prior to patients' rating their own health on two utility instruments (feeling thermometer (FT) and standard gamble (SG)) in patients with chronic respiratory disease (CRD).

METHODS

We randomized 182 patients with CRD to complete the FT (self-administered) and SG with CMS (FT+/SG+, n=91) or without marker states (FT-/SG-, n=91) before and after undergoing respiratory rehabilitation in a multi-center trial.

RESULTS

Use of CMS did not influence baseline utility scores. Improvement after therapy on the scale from 0 (dead) to 1.0 (full health) was 0.04 both in FT+ (p=0.03) and FT- (p=0.02; the difference between FT+ and FT- was 0.00, p=0.83). Improvement on the SG was 0.05 in both SG+ (p=0.08) and SG- (p=0.04; difference between SG+ and SG- 0.00, p=0.95). Correlations with other health related quality of life scores were highest for FT+.

CONCLUSION

Administration of CMS did not improve responsiveness of the FT but may have improved construct validity. The SG showed limited construct validity and responsiveness that was not influenced by CMS use.

Addressing Resource Allocation Issues in Recommendations From Clinical Practice Guideline Panels

Most panels that develop clinical practice guidelines are poorly equipped to address resource allocation or cost issues associated with management options. This risks neglect, arbitrariness, lack of transparency, and methodological flaws in consideration of resource allocation. We provide recommendations for guideline panels to promote greater transparency and rigor. We suggest focusing on resource allocation issues for only a limited number of recommendations and provide criteria for selecting those in which economic considerations are likely to influence the direction or strength of the recommendation. Panels should involve a health economist to assist with the systematic review and critical interpretation of relevant economic analyses. They should carefully define the intended audience and may consider issuing alternative recommendations when available resources vary widely across target clinical settings. Targeting a limited number of recommendations for the consideration of resource allocation issues, and ensuring methodologically high-quality review, will best serve guideline panels, and the health-care providers and patients they hope to assist.

The impact of illness in patients with moderate to severe gastro-esophageal reflux disease

Background

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease. It impairs health related quality of life (HRQL). However, the impact on utility scores and work productivity in patients with moderate to severe GERD is not well known.

Methods

We analyzed data from 217 patients with moderate to severe GERD (mean age 50, SD 13.7) across 17 Canadian centers. Patients completed three utility instruments – the standard gamble (SG), the feeling thermometer (FT), and the Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI 3) – and several HRQL instruments, including Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) and the Medical Outcomes Short Form-36 (SF-36). All patients received a proton pump inhibitor, esomeprazole 40 mg daily, for four to six weeks.

Results

The mean scores on a scale from 0 (dead) to 1 (full health) obtained for the FT, SG, and HUI 3 were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.70), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.80), and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.82) respectively. The mean scores on the SF-36 were lower than the previously reported Canadian and US general population mean scores and work productivity was impaired.

Conclusion

GERD has significant impact on utility scores, HRQL, and work productivity in patients with moderate to severe disease. Furthermore, the FT and HUI 3 provide more valid measurements of HRQL in GERD than the SG. After treatment with esomeprazole, patients showed improved HRQL.

The standard gamble demonstrated lower reliability than the feeling thermometer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Participants rated clinical marker states (CMS) to make respondents familiar with the task of preference instruments, ground their ratings in relation to other health states, and help investigators interpret patient ratings. The objective was to assess the reliability of CMS using appropriate reliability statistics.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Eighty-one patients rated CMSs for mild, moderate, and severe chronic respiratory disease using the feeling thermometer (FT) and the standard gamble (SG) before and after a 3-month respiratory rehabilitation program. To assess reliability we used (a) intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with the variance between CMSs as signal and the variance between raters, the variance within raters, and the signal as noise; (b) scatter plots; and (c) Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

ICCs were 0.47 for the FT and 0.37 for the SG. Scatter and Bland-Altman plots showed large between- and within-person variability; 64.2% and 11.3% of the CMSs ratings were in the correct order on both occasions on the FT and SG, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest moderate reliability of CMSs ratings for the FT and poor reliability for the SG, which may explain their lack of improving the SG's measurement properties. Investigators should use appropriate reliability statistics when addressing related issues.

Measurement of agreement on health-related quality of life changes in response to respiratory rehabilitation by patients and physicians--a prospective study

INTRODUCTION

To provide optimal care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease physicians need to understand if their patients benefit from an intervention. The objective of this study was to assess agreement between patients and physicians on health-related quality of life (HRQL) changes in response to respiratory rehabilitation and to explore sources for disagreement.

METHODS

Sixty-one patients rated their health states on a validated preference-based instrument, the feeling thermometer (FT). In an analogous manner, the eight treating physicians rated the patients' health states on the FT. Patients and physicians were blinded to each other's ratings. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to assess agreement between patients and physicians and used HRQL instruments and the 6-min walking test to assess the evaluative properties of the FT.

RESULTS

We found moderate agreement at baseline (ICC 0.40, P = 0.018) and follow-up (ICC 0.49, P = 0.008) but large disagreement about change scores (ICC 0.02, P = 0.46). Patients' FTchange scores correlated well with change scores of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, SF-36 and the Borg scale for dyspnoea whereas physicians' FT change scores correlated significantly with the change score of the 6- min walking test (r = 0.33). Physicians' ratings showed an inconsistent pattern for correlations with HRQL measures.

CONCLUSIONS

There is large disagreement between patients and physicians on HRQL changes in response to respiratory rehabilitation. Investigators should assess whether the introduction of HRQL instruments into clinical practice raises the awareness of physicians towards HRQL and improves agreement with their patients.

The influence of demographic factors and health-related quality of life on treatment satisfaction in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease treated with esomeprazole

Background

The correlation between treatment satisfaction and demographic characteristics, symptoms, or health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess correlates of treatment satisfaction in patients with GERD receiving a proton pump inhibitor, esomeprazole.

Methods

Adult GERD patients (n = 217) completed demography, symptom, HRQL, and treatment satisfaction questionnaires at baseline and/or after treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for 4 weeks. We used multiple linear regressions with treatment satisfaction as the dependent variable and demographic characteristics, baseline symptoms, baseline HRQL, and change scores in HRQL as independent variables.

Results

Among the demographic variables only Caucasian ethnicity was positively associated with treatment satisfaction. Greater vitality assessed by the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) and worse heartburn assessed by a four-symptom scale at baseline, were associated with greater treatment satisfaction. The greater the improvement on the QOLRAD vitality (change score), the more likely the patient is to be satisfied with the treatment.

Conclusions

Ethnicity, baseline vitality, baseline heartburn severity, and change in QOLRAD vitality correlate with treatment satisfaction in patients with GERD.

Do physicians correctly assess patient symptom severity in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease?

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of physicians' assessment of the severity of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is unclear.

AIM

To correlate physician and patient assessment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease severity and its response to treatment.

METHODS

Adult uninvestigated gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients (n = 217) completed symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaires at baseline and after treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg p.o. daily. Pearson coefficients quantified correlations between physician assessments and patient responses.

RESULTS

At baseline, the strongest correlations were heartburn severity (0.31), overall symptom severity (0.44) and a domain of the quality of life in reflux and dyspepsia questionnaire (0.31) (P < 0.001). Correlations of change with treatment were greater than baseline correlations: heartburn (0.39), overall symptoms (0.50) and global rate of change -- stomach problems (0.72, all P < 0.001). The mean difference between the physicians' assessment of change and the patients' global rating of change was 0.20 (95% confidence intervals: 0.10-0.29) with physicians overestimating benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Correlations were often significant, although weak to moderate and better with symptom severity than with health-related quality of life instruments as well as with change after therapy than at baseline. Increasing attention to health-related quality of life may help physicians better understand patients' experience. In clinical trials, treatment success should be assessed by the patient as well as the physician.