Agreeing the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for primary care: a Delphi consensus study

The Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure in Recessive Ataxias: The Person-Reported Ataxia Impact Scale

Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias (ARCAs) are inherited neurological disorders that can affect both the central and peripheral nervous systems. To assess the effects of interventions according to the perception of people affected, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) must be available. This paper presents the development process of the Person-Reported Ataxia Impact Scale (PRAIS), a new PROM in recessive ataxias, and the documentation of its content validity, interpretability, and construct validity (structural and discriminant). The development followed the PROMIS framework and the Food and Drug Administration guidelines. A mixed-method study design was used to develop the PROM. A systematic review of the literature, semistructured interviews, and discussion groups was conducted to constitute an item pool. Experts' consultation helped formulate items, and the questionnaire was sent online to be completed by people affected. Statistical analyses were performed to assess the structural and discriminant validity. A total of 125 people affected by recessive ataxia completed the questionnaire. The factor analysis confirmed the three components: physical functions and activities, mental functions, and social functions. The statistical analysis showed that it can discriminate between stages of mobility and level of autonomy. It showed very good levels of internal consistency (0.79 to 0.89). The Person-Reported Ataxia Impact Scale (PRAIS) is a 38-item questionnaire that assesses the manifestations and impacts of the disease according to the perception of people affected by recessive ataxia. It can be used in clinical and research settings.

Protocol for a mixed-methods study to develop and feasibility test a digital system for the capture of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies (the PRO-CAR-T study)

INTRODUCTION

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are novel, potentially curative therapies for haematological malignancies. CAR T-cell therapies are associated with severe toxicities, meaning patients require monitoring during acute and postacute treatment phases. Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), self-reports of health status provided via online questionnaires, can complement clinician observation with potential to improve patient outcomes. This study will develop and evaluate feasibility of a new ePRO system for CAR-T patients in routine care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Multiphase, mixed-methods study involving multiple stakeholder groups (patients, family members, carers, clinicians, academics/researchers and policy-makers). The intervention development phase comprises a Delphi study to select PRO measures for the digital system, a codesign workshop and consensus meetings to establish thresholds for notifications to the clinical team if a patient reports severe symptoms or side effects. Usability testing will evaluate how users interact with the digital system and, lastly, we will evaluate ePRO system feasibility with 30 CAR-T patients (adults aged 18+ years) when used in addition to usual care. Feasibility study participants will use the ePRO system to submit self-reports of symptoms, treatment tolerability and quality of life at specific time points. The CAR-T clinical team will respond to system notifications triggered by patients' submitted responses with actions in line with standard clinical practice. Feasibility measures will be collected at prespecified time points following CAR T-cell infusion. A qualitative substudy involving patients and clinical team members will explore acceptability of the ePRO system.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Favourable ethical opinion was granted by the Health and Social Care Research Ethics Committee B(HSC REC B) (ref: 23/NI/0104) on 28 September 2023. Findings will be submitted for publication in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals. Summaries of results, codeveloped with the Blood and Transplant Research Unit Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement group, will be disseminated to all interested groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISCTRN11232653.

Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of digital health literacy for chronic patients: results of a French international online Delphi study

BACKGROUND

A psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess digital health literacy for chronic patients is needed in the context of digital health. We defined measurement constructs for a new PROM in previous studies using a systematic review, a qualitative description of constructs from patients, health professionals and an item pool identification process. This study aimed to evaluate the content validity of a digital health literacy PROM for chronic patients using an e-Delphi technique.

METHODS

An international three-round online Delphi (e-Delphi) study was conducted among a francophone expert panel gathering academics, clinicians and patient partners. These experts rated the relevance, improvability, and self-ratability of each construct (n = 5) and items (n = 14) of the preliminary version of the PROM on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus attainment was defined as strong if ≥ 70% panelists agree or strongly agree. A qualitative analysis of comments was carried out to describe personal coping strategies in healthcare expressed by the panel. Qualitative results were presented using a conceptually clustered matrix.

RESULTS

Thirty-four experts completed the study (with 10% attrition at the second round and 5% at the third round). The panel included mostly nurses working in clinical practice and academics from nursing science, medicine, public health background and patient partners. Five items were excluded, and one question was added during the consensus attainment process. Qualitative comments describing the panel view of coping strategies in healthcare were analysed. Results showed two important themes that underpin most of personal coping strategies related to using information and communications technologies: 1) questionable patient capacity to assess digital health literacy, 2) digital devices as a factor influencing patient and care.

CONCLUSION

Consensus was reached on the relevance, improvability, and self-ratability of 5 constructs and 11 items for a digital health literacy PROM. Evaluation of e-health programs requires validated measurement of digital health literacy including the empowerment construct. This new PROM appears as a relevant tool, but requires further validation.

Achieving consensus on priority items for paediatric palliative care outcome measurement: Results from a modified Delphi survey, engagement with a children's research involvement group and expert item generation

BACKGROUND

There is no validated outcome measure for use in children's palliative care outside sub-Saharan Africa. Stakeholders must be involved in the development of such measures to ensure face and content validity.

AIM

To gain expert stakeholder consensus on items for inclusion in a paediatric palliative care outcome measure to establish face and content validity.

DESIGN

This study was conducted in two phases following Rothrock and COSMIN guidance on patient-reported outcome measure development. Phase 1: Three-round modified Delphi survey to establish consensus on priority items. Phase 2: Item generation meeting with key stakeholders to develop initial measure versions. A young person's advisory group was also consulted on priority outcomes.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Delphi survey: Parents and professionals with experience of caring for a child with a life-limiting condition. Young person's advisory group: young people age 10-20 years. Item generation meeting: bereaved parents, academics and clinicians.

RESULTS

Phase 1: Delphi survey (n = 82). Agreement increased from Kendall's W = 0.17 to W = 0.61, indicating movement towards consensus. Agreement between professional and parent ranking was poor (Cohen's kappa 0.13). Professionals prioritised physical symptoms, whereas parents prioritised psychosocial and practical concerns. Advisory group: Children (n = 22) prioritised items related to living a 'normal life' in addition to items prioritised by adult participants. Phase 2: Five age/developmental stage appropriate child and proxy-reported versions of C-POS, containing 13 items, were drafted.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance and feasibility of involving key stakeholders in PROM item generation, as important differences were found in the priority outcomes identified by children, parents and professionals.

Academic pharmacist competencies in ordinary and emergency situations: content validation and pilot description in Lebanese academia

BACKGROUND

In the absence of a similar study in the Lebanese context, this study aimed to validate the content of the specialized competencies frameworks of academic pharmacists (educators, researchers, and clinical preceptors) and pilot their use for practice assessment in the context of multiple severe crises.

METHODS

A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted between March and September 2022 among academic pharmacists enrolled by snowball sampling using a questionnaire created on Google Forms.

RESULTS

The suggested frameworks had appropriate content to assess the competencies of academic pharmacists. Educators and clinical preceptors were confident in all their competencies except for emergency preparedness. Researchers had varying levels of confidence, ranging from moderate to high confidence for many competencies, but gaps were reported in fundamental research, conducting clinical trials, and pharmacy practice research (mean < 80). Educators and researchers relied primarily on experience and postgraduate studies, while clinical preceptors emphasized undergraduate studies to acquire their respective competencies. Continuing education sessions/programs were the least cited as a competency-acquiring venue across all roles.

CONCLUSION

This study could develop and validate the content of frameworks for specialized competencies of academic pharmacists, including educators, researchers, and clinical preceptors, in a challenging setting. The frameworks were also piloted for practice assessment, which could contribute to supporting effective performance and sustained development of practitioners and help link the skills and competencies pharmacists learn during their studies with those required for a career in academia.

Developing a core outcome set for patient-reported symptom monitoring to reduce hospital admissions for patients with heart failure

AIMS

In patients with heart failure (HF), hospitalization rates are increasing, particularly for non-HF causes and over half may be avoidable. Self-monitoring of symptoms plays a key part in the early identification of deterioration. Our objective was to develop expert consensus for a core outcome set (COS) of symptoms to be monitored by patients, using validated single-item patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), focused on the key priority of reducing admissions in HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A rigorous COS development process incorporating systematic review, modified e-Delphi and nominal group technique (NGT) methods. Participants included 24 HF patients, 4 carers, 29 HF nurses, and 9 doctors. In three Delphi and NGT rounds, participants rated potential outcomes on their importance before a HF or a non-HF admission using a 5-point Likert scale. Opinion change between rounds was assessed and a two-thirds threshold was used for outcome selection.Item generation using systematic review identified 100 validated single-item PROMs covering 34 symptoms or signs, relevant to admission for people with HF. De-duplication and formal consensus processes, resulted in a COS comprising eight symptoms and signs; shortness of breath, arm or leg swelling, abdomen bloating, palpitations, weight gain, chest pain, anxiety, and overall health. In the NGT, a numerical rating scale was selected as the optimal approach to symptom monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Recognition of a range of HF-specific and general symptoms, alongside comorbidities, is an important consideration for admission prevention. Further work is needed to validate and integrate the COS in routine care with the aim of facilitating faster identification of clinical deterioration.

Establishing the content validity of a new emergency department patient-reported experience measure (ED PREM): a Delphi study

Background

Patient-reported experience measures aim to capture the patient’s perspective of what happened during a care encounter and how it happened. However, due to a lack of guidance to support patient-reported experience measure development and reporting, the content validity of many instruments is unclear and ambiguous. Thus, the aim of this study was to establish the content validity of a newly developed Emergency Department Patient-Reported Experience Measure (ED PREM).

Methods

ED PREM items were developed based on the findings of a systematic mixed studies review, and qualitative interviews with Emergency Department patients that occurred during September and October, 2020. Individuals who participated in the qualitative interviews were approached again during August 2021 to participate in the ED PREM content validation study. The preliminary ED PREM comprised 37 items. A two-round modified, online Delphi study was undertaken where patient participants were asked to rate the clarity, relevance, and importance of ED PREM items on a 4-point content validity index scale. Each round lasted for two-weeks, with 1 week in between for analysis. Consensus was a priori defined as item-level content validity index scores of ≥0.80. A scale-level content validity index score was also calculated.

Results

Fifteen patients participated in both rounds of the online Delphi study. At the completion of the study, two items were dropped and 13 were revised, resulting in a 35-item ED PREM. The scale-level content validity index score for the final 35-item instrument was 0.95.

Conclusions

The newly developed ED PREM demonstrates good content validity and aligns strongly with the concept of Emergency Department patient experience as described in the literature. The ED PREM will next be administered in a larger study to establish its’ construct validity and reliability. There is an imperative for clear guidance on PREM content validation methodologies. Thus, this study may inform the efforts of other researchers undertaking PREM content validation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-022-00617-5.

Evaluating the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for people with multimorbidity: a Delphi consensus

PURPOSE

Evidence supporting multimorbidity-adapted interventions is scarce, mostly due to a lack of adapted outcome measures. Measurement constructs for a novel patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) were defined in previous studies using a literature review, a qualitative description from stakeholders, and an item pool identification process. The aim of this study was to attain consensus on the content of this novel PROM.

METHODS

A three-round electronic modified Delphi technique was conducted using an academic and clinical expert panel. Using a Likert scale, the panel rated the relevance, improvability, and self-ratability of each construct and item of the preliminary version of the PROM. The main outcome was consensus attainment, defined as strong (≥ 70%), moderate (50-69%) or low agreement (< 50%). Constructs and items with strong consensus were kept, moderate were sent to the next round and low agreement were rejected.

RESULTS

From the 61 experts contacted, 39 participated in the first round of the Delphi, with a 12.8% attrition at the second round (n = 34) and 38.2% at the third round (n = 21). The panel included mostly female academic experts from nursing and medicine backgrounds. The preliminary PROM included 19 constructs and 70 items; from these, 16 constructs and 50 items attained consensus. The consensus attainment process excluded three constructs and their items: awareness, weight control and social integration.

CONCLUSION

Consensus was reached for a patient-reported outcome measure adapted for people with multimorbidity including 50 relevant, improvable and self-ratable items categorized under 16 constructs. As more interventions tailored to multimorbidity are implemented, there is an increasing need for a valid measure of the effectiveness of these interventions.

Primary care physician's (PCP) perceived value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient engagement, shared-decision making and improve the overall experience of care. However, PRO integration in the primary care clinical setting is limited. Exploring the perspectives of primary care physicians (PCPs) on PROs is key to understanding how they are being used in the clinical setting. We sought to elucidate this clinical perspective at one of the largest US health systems that has integrated a wide range of PROs into routine primary care.

METHODS

Mixed methods study with both anonymous online surveys and in-person qualitative semistructured interviews conducted with PCPs to understand their clinical perspectives on the applications of the existing PROs. PCPs from the 19 affiliated clinics were prompted to complete the survey. Interviewed PCPs were selected via a combination of random and purposive selection from the PCP directory.

RESULTS

Of 172 PCPs, 117 (68%) completed the online survey and 28 completed semistructured interviews. Most PCPs (77%) reviewed PRO responses with their patients. PCPs endorsed that PROs improve clinic efficiency and clinical management. However, PCPs have heterogeneous perspectives on the relevance of PROs in clinical practice, likely due to variations in clinic practice. For specific PRO instruments, PCPs reported anxiety and depression screening PROs to be most helpful. PCPs felt that PROs assisted with completing screening questions that are required by regulatory bodies. Barriers to using PROs include poor user-interface for both clinicians and patients and inadequate training.

CONCLUSIONS

Most PCPs regularly use PRO data though there are mixed opinions about their clinical relevance. An adaptable, user-friendly PRO system has the potential to have meaningful clinical applications in primary care.

General practitioners' views on use of patient reported outcome measures in primary care: a cross-sectional survey and qualitative study

Background

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented.

We aimed to understand how PROMs are currently being used in primary care, the barriers and facilitators of this use and if appropriate how it might be optimised.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs’ opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors’ community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs.

Results

Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n = 66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n = 62).

Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussions. The interviews identified key barriers to PROM use including: time constraints; insufficient knowledge; lack of integration into clinical systems; and PROMs being mandated without consultation or explanation. Evidence of the benefit of PROMs is required to promote uptake and use of PROMs in primary care.

Conclusion

Implementation of PROMs in primary care requires integration with clinical systems, a bottom-up approach to PROM selection and system design involving meaningful consultation with patients and primary care clinicians and training/support for use.

Expert consensus on information sheet proposals for patients under treatment with lithium

INTRODUCTION

Lithium is one of the first therapeutic options for bipolar disorder, which is characterized by recurrent mood swings that strongly reduce quality of life. Our purpose was to achieve professional consensus criteria to define the contents of an information sheet for patients with bipolar disorder that are starting treatment with lithium.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A modified Delphi method in two rounds was used. The Scientific Committee-made up by nine psychiatrists-created a 20-item questionnaire about the information that must be given to the patient treated with lithium and selected a panel of ambulatory and hospital psychiatric experts to agree on this information. Panelists scored each item based on a Likert scale of 9 points and could add comments in a confidential manner. It was considered consensus in agreement when median scores were within the range of [7-9] and in disagreement within the range of [1-3].

RESULTS

A high level of consensus was reached. In the first round, there was agreement on 17 out of 20 items and, after the second round, there was disagreement on just one item containing information about the discovery of lithium. Finally, said item was modified in the Patient's Information Sheet based on the comments suggested by the panelists.

CONCLUSIONS

This study allowed to create an information sheet for patients with bipolar disorder under treatment with lithium, with information agreed upon by a group of experts from different health care settings.

Neurocognitive disorders: what are the prioritized caregiver needs? A consensus obtained by the Delphi method

Background

The symptoms related to neurocognitive disorders (NCD) may lead to caregiver burden increase. Involving caregivers in research may be an effective way of improving the practicalities and relevance of interventions. The aim of this study was to gather opinion and gain consensus on the caregivers ‘priorities, using a Delphi method and including aspects of needs in pharmaceutical dimension.

Methods

Observational study using a modified Delphi method. This study was conducted in the Clinical and Research Memory Center of the University Hospital of Lyon (France), between September 2015 and January 2016. The expert panel was composed of 68 informal caregivers of people with subjective cognitive decline or NCD living at home.

Results

Caregivers assigned a very high importance to the dimension “information needs about their relative’s disease”, i.e. information on the disease, the treatment and the research; and to “coping skills”, i.e. skills related to emotional support, communication, relationship evolution with the relative and skills to cope with behavioural crisis, behavioural and cognitive disorders. The aspect “coping with behavioural disorders” received a high selection rate (83%).

Conclusions

The main needs selected can be used to design relevant interventions and give guidance to policy to support caregivers. To meet caregiver’s needs, interventions should focus on information about disease and treatment and psychoeducational interventions.

Patient understanding of two commonly used patient reported outcome measures for primary care: a cognitive interview study

Background

Standardised generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which measure health status are often unresponsive to change in primary care. Alternative formats, which have been used to increase responsiveness, include individualised PROMs (in which respondents specify the outcomes of interest in their own words) and transitional PROMs (in which respondents directly rate change over a period). The objective of this study was to test qualitatively, through cognitive interviews, two PROMs, one using each respective format.

Methods

The individualised PROM selected was the Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile (MYMOP). The transitional PROM was the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI). Twenty patients who had recently attended the GP were interviewed while completing the questionnaires. Interview data was analysed using a modification of Tourangeau’s model of cognitive processing: comprehension, response, recall and face validity.

Results

Patients found the PEI simple to complete, but for some it lacked face validity. The transitional scale was sometimes confused with a status scale and was problematic in situations when the relevant GP appointment was part of a longer episode of care. Some patients reported a high enablement score despite verbally reporting low enablement but high regard for their GP, which suggested hypothesis-guessing. The interpretation of the PEI items was inconsistent between patients.

MYMOP was more difficult for patients to complete, but had greater face validity than the PEI. The scale used was open to response-shift: some patients suggested they would recalibrate their definition of the scale endpoints as their illness and expectations changed.

Conclusions

The study provides information for both users of PEI/MYMOP and developers of individualised and transitional questionnaires.

Users should heed the recommendation that MYMOP should be interview-administered, and this is likely to apply to other individualised scales. The PEI is open to hypothesis-guessing and may lack face-validity for a longer episode of care (e.g. in patients with chronic conditions). Developers should be cognisant that transitional scales can be inconsistently completed: some patients forget during completion that they are measuring change from baseline. Although generic questionnaires require the content to be more general than do disease-specific questionnaires, developers should avoid questions which allow broad and varied interpretations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0850-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study

Background

There is international interest in the potential role of different forms of communication technology to provide an alternative to face-to-face consultations in health care. There has been considerable rhetoric about the need for general practices to offer consultations by telephone, e-mail or internet video. However, little is understood about how, under what conditions, for which patients and in what ways these approaches may offer benefits to patients and practitioners in general practice.

Objectives

Our objectives were to review existing evidence about alternatives to face-to-face consultation; conduct a scoping exercise to identify the ways in which general practices currently provide these alternatives; recruit eight general practices as case studies for focused ethnographic research, exploring how practice context, patient characteristics, type of technology and the purpose of the consultation interact to determine the impact of these alternatives; and synthesise the findings in order to develop a website resource about the implementation of alternatives to face-to-face consultations and a framework for subsequent evaluation.

Design

Mixed-methods case study.

Setting

General practices in England and Scotland with varied experience of implementing alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

Participants

Patients and practice staff.

Interventions

Alternatives to face-to-face consultations include telephone consultations, e-mail, e-consultations and internet video.

Main outcome measures

How context influenced the implementation and impact of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation; the rationale for practices to introduce alternatives; the use of different forms of consultation by different patient groups; and the intended benefits/outcomes.

Review methods

The conceptual review used an approach informed by realist review, a method for synthesising research evidence regarding complex interventions.

Results

Alternatives to the face-to-face consultation are not in mainstream use in general practice, with low uptake in our case study practices. We identified the underlying rationales for the use of these alternatives and have shown that different stakeholders have different perspectives on what they hope to achieve through the use of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation. Through the observation of real-life use of different forms of alternative, we have a clearer understanding of how, under what circumstances and for which patients alternatives might have a range of intended benefits and potential unintended adverse consequences. We have also developed a framework for future evaluation.

Limitations

The low uptake of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation means that our research participants might be deemed to be early adopters. The case study approach provides an in-depth examination of a small number of sites, each using alternatives in different ways. The findings are therefore hypothesis-generating, rather than hypothesis-testing.

Conclusions

The current low uptake of alternatives, lack of clarity about purpose and limited evidence of benefit may be at odds with current policy, which encourages the use of alternatives. We have highlighted key issues for practices and policy-makers to consider and have made recommendations about priorities for further research to be conducted, before or alongside the future roll-out of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation, such as telephone consulting, e-consultation, e-mail and video consulting.

Future work

We have synthesised our findings to develop a framework and recommendations about future evaluation of the use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

Funding details

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire: psychometric testing of a new instrument

Background

Patients attend primary care for many reasons and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently no Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) designed to capture these diverse outcomes, and trials of interventions in primary care may thus fail to detect beneficial effects.

Aim

This study describes the psychometric testing of the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ), which was designed to capture a broad range of outcomes relevant to primary care.

Design and setting

Questionnaires were administered in primary care in South West England.

Method

Patients completed the PCOQ in GP waiting rooms before a consultation, and a second questionnaire, including the PCOQ and seven comparator PROMs, after 1 week. Psychometric testing included exploratory factor analysis on the PCOQ, internal consistency, correlation coefficients between domain scores and comparator measures, and repeated measures effect sizes indicating change across 1 week.

Results

In total, 602 patients completed the PCOQ at baseline, and 264 (44%) returned the follow-up questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis suggested four dimensions underlying the PCOQ items: health and wellbeing, health knowledge and self-care, confidence in health provision, and confidence in health plan. Each dimension was internally consistent and correlated as expected with comparator PROMs, providing evidence of construct validity. Patients reporting an improvement in their main problem exhibited small to moderate improvements in relevant domain scores on the PCOQ.

Conclusion

The PCOQ was acceptable, feasible, showed strong psychometric properties, and was responsive to change. It is a promising new tool for assessment of outcomes of primary care interventions from a patient perspective.

Qualitative assessment of the primary care outcomes questionnaire: a cognitive interview study

BACKGROUND

The Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ) is a new patient-reported outcome measure designed specifically for primary care. This paper describes the developmental process of improving the item quality and testing the face validity of the PCOQ through cognitive interviews with primary care patients.

METHODS

Two formats of the PCOQ were developed and assessed: the PCOQ-Status (which has an adjectival scale) and the PCOQ-Change (which has the same items as the PCOQ-Status, but a transitional scale). Three rounds of cognitive interviews were held with twenty patients from four health centres in Bristol. Patients seeking healthcare were recruited directly by their GP or practice nurse, and others not currently seeking healthcare were recruited from patient participation groups. An adjusted form of Tourangeau's model of cognitive processing was used to identify problems. This contained four categories: general comprehension, temporal comprehension, decision process, and response process. The resultant pattern of problems was used to assess whether the items and scales were working as intended, and to make improvements to the questionnaires.

RESULTS

The problems identified in the PCOQ-Status reduced from 41 in round one to seven in round three. It was noted that the PCOQ-Status seemed to be capturing a subjective view of health which might not vary with age or long-term conditions. However, as it is designed to be evaluative (measuring change over time) as opposed to discriminative (measuring change between different groups of people), this does not present a problem for validity. The PCOQ-Status was both understood by patients and was face valid. The PCOQ-Change had less face validity, and was misunderstood by three out of six patients in round 1. It was not taken forward after this round.

CONCLUSIONS

The cognitive interviews successfully contributed to the development of the PCOQ. Through this study, the PCOQ-Status was found to be well understood by patients, and it was possible to improve comprehension through each round of interviews. The PCOQ-Change was poorly understood and, given that this corroborates existing research, this may call into question the use of transitional questionnaires generally.