[Self-evaluation of the quality of life of children aged 6 to 12 years old: analysis of the concept and development of a prototype tool]

A systematic review of generic multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures for children, part II: evaluation of psychometric performance of English-language versions in a general population

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this systematic review were 1) to identify studies that assess the psychometric performance of the English-language version of 35 generic multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for children and young people in general populations and evaluate their quality and 2) to summarize the psychometric properties of each PROM.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched. The methodological quality of the articles was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. For each PROM, extracted evidence of content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, proxy reliability, responsiveness, and precision was judged against standardized reference criteria.

RESULTS

We found no evidence for 14 PROMs. For the remaining 21 PROMs, 90 studies were identified. The methodological quality of most studies was fair. Quality was generally rated higher in more recent studies. Not reporting how missing data were handled was the most common reason for downgrading the quality. None of the 21 PROMs has had all psychometric properties evaluated; data on construct validity and internal consistency were most frequently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, consistent positive findings for at least five psychometric properties were found for Child Health and Illness Profile, Healthy Pathways, KIDSCREEN, and Multi-dimensional Student Life Satisfaction Scale. None of the PROMs had been evaluated for responsiveness to detect change in general populations. Further well-designed studies with transparent reporting of methods and results are required.

A systematic review of generic multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures for children, part I: descriptive characteristics

OBJECTIVES

To identify generic, multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for children up to 18 years old and describe their characteristics and content assessed using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Children and Youth version (ICF-CY).

METHODS

The search strategy, developed by an information specialist, included four groups of terms related to "measure," "health," "children and young people," and "psychometric performance." The search was limited to publications from 1992. Five electronic databases and two online-specific PROM databases were searched. Two groups of reviewers independently screened all abstracts for eligible PROMs. Descriptive characteristics of the eligible PROMs were collected, and items and domains of each questionnaire were mapped onto the ICF-CY chapters.

RESULTS

We identified 35 PROMs, of which 29 were generic PROMs and 6 were preference-based measures. Many PROMs cover a range of aspects of health; however, social functioning is represented most often. Content covered differs both in which aspects of health are assessed and whether individual questions focus on functioning (what the subject can or does do) and/or well-being (how the subject feels about a certain aspect of his or her health).

CONCLUSIONS

A broad variety of PROMs is available to assess children's health. Nevertheless, only a few PROMs can be used across all age ranges to 18 years. When mapping their content on the ICF-CY, it seems that most PROMs exclude at least one major domain, and all conflate aspects of functioning and well-being in the scales.

Informing the NHS Outcomes Framework: evaluating meaningful health outcomes for children with neurodisability using multiple methods including systematic review, qualitative research, Delphi survey and consensus meeting

Background

The identification of suitable outcome measures will improve the evaluation of integrated NHS care for the large number of children affected by neurodisability, and has the potential to encourage the provision of more appropriate and effective health care. This research sought to appraise the potential of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for children and young people with neurodisability.

Aim

This research aimed (i) to identify key outcomes of health care for children with neurodisability, beyond morbidity and mortality, from the perspectives of children, parents and professionals; (ii) to critically appraise existing generic multidimensional PROMs; and (iii) to examine whether or not the key outcomes might be measured by existing PROMs. We also sought agreement on a definition of neurodisability.

Methods

Data were gathered in three main ways, (i) a systematic review identified eligible generic multidimensional PROMs and peer-reviewed studies evaluating psychometric performance using English-language questionnaires. Studies were appraised for methodological quality and psychometric performance was appraised using standard criteria. (ii) Focus groups and interviews with children and young people with neurodisability, and separately with parents, sought to identify important outcomes of NHS care, and their feedback on example PROM questionnaires. (iii) An online Delphi survey was conducted with a multidisciplinary sample of health professionals to seek agreement on appropriate NHS outcomes. In addition, we convened a consensus meeting with a small nominal group of young people, parents and professionals; the group sought agreement on a core set of important health outcomes.

Results

From the systematic review, we identified 126 papers that reported eligible evidence regarding the psychometric performance of 25 PROMs. Evidence of psychometric robustness was more favourable for a small number of PROMs: KIDSCREEN (generic), DISABKIDS (chronic-generic) and Child Health Utility 9D (preference-based measure). The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and KINDL offer both self-report and a proxy report version for a range of age bands, but evidence of their psychometric performance was weaker. Evidence was lacking in one or more respects for all candidate PROMs, in both general populations and those with neurodisability. Proxy reporting was found generally to be poorly correlated with self-report. Focus groups and interviews included 54 children and young people, and 53 parents. The more important health outcomes were felt to be communication, emotional well-being, pain, mobility, independence/self-care, worry/mental health, social activities and sleep. In addition, parents of children with intellectual impairment identified behaviour, toileting and safety as important outcomes. Participants suggested problems with the face validity of example PROM questionnaires for measuring NHS care. In the Delphi survey, 276 clinicians from a wide range of professions contributed to at least one of four rounds. Professionals rated pain, hearing, seeing, sleep, toileting, mobility and communication as key goals for the NHS but also identified treating neurological symptoms as important. Professionals in the Delphi survey and parents working with the research team agreed a proposed definition for neurodisability. The consensus meeting confirmed overlap between the outcomes identified as important by young people, parents and professionals, but not complete agreement.

Conclusions

There was agreement between young people, parents and professionals regarding a core suite of more important health outcomes: communication, emotional well-being, pain, mobility, independence/self-care, worry/mental health, social activities and sleep. In addition, behaviour, toileting and safety were identified as important by parents. This research suggests that it would be appropriate to measure these constructs using PROMs to assess health care. None of the candidate PROMs in the review adequately captures all of the identified constructs, and there is inadequate evidence that candidate PROMs are psychometrically robust for use across children with neurodisability. Further consultation with young people, families and professionals is warranted to support the use of PROMs to measure NHS outcomes. Research to test potential PROMs with different age groups and conditions would be valuable.

Funding

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

Auto-évaluation de la qualité de vie d'enfants de 6 à 12 ans : construction et premières étapes de validation du KidIQol, outil générique présenté sur ordinateur

The KidlQol is a self-evaluation computer-based instrument to assess the quality of life of children aged 6 to 12 years old. This self-evaluation comprises three areas of their subjective quality of life: physical, psychological and social. A computer-assisted tool, composed of 62 items, was developed and set up based upon the results from the evaluation of the initial prototype tool which underwent a series validation steps, tested among children with and without psychological problems. This evaluation lead to the production of a final tool called KidlQuol, which is composed of 44 items. This tool, which utilises computer images to represent real-life situations, is adapted for and accessible to children with a French cultural background aged between 6 and 12 years old. As a generic tool, it could be used among a population of children with various types of handicaps, chronic diseases or psycho-social difficulties.