Evaluating functional outcomes in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: development and initial testing of a self-report instrument

Understanding data visualization techniques in qualitative studies used to develop and validate patient-reported outcome measures: a targeted literature review

PURPOSE

Qualitative data that reflects patients' experiences are the foundation of any patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) development and validation study; however, there is limited understanding of the type of data visualization techniques that facilitate communication of this data. The goal of this targeted literature review was to investigate data visualization methods that have been used in published PROM development and validation literature to report qualitative results.

METHODS

A literature search in OVID via MEDLINE was conducted among the top 10 non-disease-specific journals publishing PROM qualitative development and validation studies. Studies that reported qualitative methods to develop/validate a PROM and included data visualization in the form of tables or figures were included. Article characteristics and data visualization types were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 185 articles were included in data extraction. Most articles (n = 109, 59.1%) included figures (n = 172, average 2 relevant figures per article) in the form of hierarchy/flowcharts (n = 124, 72.1%) and bar charts (n = 29, 16.9%). Information reported in figures included depiction of conceptual frameworks (n = 112, 65.1%) and concept frequency (n = 40, 24.4%). Most articles (n = 152, 81.7%) included tables (n = 307, average 2 relevant tables per article). Information reported in tables included concept frequency (n = 133, 43.3%) and cognitive debriefing and revisions (n = 91, 29.6%).

CONCLUSION

Data visualization techniques used to report qualitative results in the identified PROM qualitative development and validation studies were heterogeneous, and many studies did not utilize any data visualization techniques. This study will inform the development of guidance for using data visualizations to report qualitative PROM research.

Review of Clinical Outcome Assessments in Pediatric Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

PURPOSE

Various clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are used in clinical research to assess and monitor treatment efficacy in pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) trials. It is unclear whether the concepts assessed are those that are important to patients and their caregivers. The concepts measured by commonly used COAs in this population have not been explicitly compared.

METHODS

We conducted reviews of the qualitative literature to extract information on pediatric ADHD-related concepts reported by pediatric patients, parents, and teachers. Using these concepts, we developed a conceptual framework of pediatric ADHD using both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria and the additional symptoms and behavioral impacts identified in the literature. We searched for COAs that have been used in pediatric ADHD research and mapped their items based on their conceptual underpinning.

RESULTS

Of the 27 COAs found in the empirical literature, 4 COAs assessed only DSM symptoms. The most comprehensive coverage of our conceptual framework was seen in the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Rating Scale-DSM-IV (SNAP-IV). Eighteen COAs were used in at least 1 clinical trial: ADHD-Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) was used most often (n=77), followed by SNAP-IV (n=50), Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham Scale (SKAMP; n=31), Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale (WFIRS; n=24), and Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Rating Scale (VADRS; n=15).

CONCLUSION

We identified symptoms and behavioral impacts from qualitative studies in pediatric ADHD that are not included in DSM-based criteria. Most COAs used in pediatric ADHD clinical trials measure only those symptoms listed in the DSM. While these COAs can measure symptom severity, they may not assess the full range of symptoms and impacts important to patients and their caregivers. Future research is needed to measure all concepts important to patients and caregivers within ADHD clinical trials.

A Systematic Review of the Use and Quality of Qualitative Methods in Concept Elicitation for Measures with Children and Young People

BACKGROUND

Qualitative research is recommended in concept elicitation for patient-reported outcome measures to ensure item content validity, and those developing measures are encouraged to report qualitative methods in detail. However, in measure development for children and young people, direct research can be challenging due to problems with engagement and communication.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to (i) explore the qualitative and adapted data collection techniques that research teams have used with children and young people to generate items in existing measures and (ii) assess the quality of qualitative reporting.

METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched with forward citation and reference list searching of key papers. Papers included in the review were empirical studies documenting qualitative concept elicitation with children and young people. Data on qualitative methods were extracted, and all studies were checked against a qualitative reporting checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies were included. The quality of reporting of qualitative approaches for item generation was low, with information missing on sampling, data analysis and the research team, all of which are key to facilitating judgements around measure content validity. Few papers reported adapting methods to be more suitable for children and young people, potentially missing opportunities to more meaningfully engage children in concept elicitation work.

CONCLUSIONS

Research teams should ensure that they are documenting detailed and transparent processes for concept elicitation. Guidelines are currently lacking in the development and reporting of item generation for children, with this being an important area for future research.

Beyond study participants: a framework for engaging patients in the selection or development of clinical outcome assessments for evaluating the benefits of treatment in medical product development

BACKGROUND

Patients are participating more actively in health care decision-making with regard to their health, as well as in the broader realm of assessing the value of medical products and influencing decisions about their registration and reimbursement. There is an increasing trend to include patients' perspectives throughout the stages of medical product development by broadening the traditional study-participant role to that of an active partner throughout the process. Including patients in the selection and development of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) to evaluate the benefit of treatment is particularly important. Still, despite widespread enthusiasm, there is substantial uncertainty regarding how and when to engage patients in this process.

PURPOSE

This manuscript proposes a methodological framework for engaging patients at varying levels in the selection and development of COAs for medical product development.

FRAMEWORK

The framework builds on the Food and Drug Administration's roadmap for patient-focused COA. Methods for engaging patients across each stage in this roadmap are summarized by levels of engagement. Opportunities and examples of patient engagement (PE) in the selection and/or development of COAs are summarized, together with best practices and practical considerations.

CONCLUSION

This paper offers a framework for understanding, planning, and implementing methods to advance PE in the selection and/or development of COAs for evaluating the benefit of medical products. The intent is to further this important discussion and enhance the process and outcome of PE in this context.