Negligible impact of differential item functioning between Black and White dialysis patients on the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item short form survey (KDQOLTM-36)

Differential Performance of Social Communication Questionnaire Items in African American/Black vs. White Children

Screening for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is an essential early step in the identification process and inaccurate screening may lead to significant delays in the onset of treatment. Past research has highlighted discrepancies in the performance of ASD screening tools such as the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) among certain racial and ethnic groups. The current study explored the functioning of the SCQ among African American/Black and White respondents based on item level performance on the measure. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analyses showed that 16 (41%) items of the SCQ functioned differently for African American/Black respondents when compared to White respondents. Implications, such as the potential for delayed diagnosis and treatment, and the influence on downstream outcomes, are discussed.

Evaluating symptom burden in kidney transplant recipients: validation of the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System for kidney transplant recipients - a single-center, cross-sectional study

We assessed the validity of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) in kidney transplant recipients (KTR). A cross-sectional sample of 252 KTR was recruited. Individual ESAS-r symptom scores and symptom domain scores were evaluated. Internal consistency, convergent validity, and construct validity were assessed with Cronbach's α, Spearman's rank correlations, and a priori-defined risk group comparisons. Mean (SD) age was 51 (16), 58% were male, and 58% Caucasian. ESAS-r Physical, Emotional, and Global Symptom Scores demonstrated good internal consistency (α > 0.8 for all). ESAS-r Physical and Global Symptom Scores strongly correlated with PHQ-9 scores (0.72, 95% CI: 0.64-0.78 and 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67-0.80). For a priori-defined risk groups, individual ESAS-r symptom score differed between groups with lower versus higher eGFR [pain: 1 (0-3) vs. 0 (0-2), delta = 0.18; tiredness: 3 (1-5) vs. 1.5 (0-4), delta = 0.21] and lower versus higher hemoglobin [tiredness: 3 (1-6) vs. 2 (0-4), delta = 0.27]. ESAS-r Global and Physical Symptom Scores differed between groups with lower versus higher hemoglobin [13 (6-29) vs. 6.5 (0-18.5), delta = 0.3, and 9 (2-19) vs. 4 (0-13), delta = 0.24] and lower versus higher eGFR [11 (4-20) vs. 6.5 (2-13), delta = 0.21, and 7 (2-16) vs. 3 (0-9), delta = 0.26]. These data support reliability and construct validity of ESAS-r in KTR. Future studies should explore its clinical utility for symptom assessment among KTR.

Problems with analyses and interpretation of data in "use of the KDQOL-36™ for assessment of health-related quality of life among dialysis patients in the United States"

A recent article in the journal reported analyses of KDQOL-36™ survey data collected from 240,343 adults (330,412 surveys) dialyzed at a large dialysis organization in the United States during 2014-2016. The authors concluded that the KDQOL-36™ Symptoms and Problems of Kidney Disease scale had the highest mean score of the KDQOL-36™ scales. We note that this inference was erroneous because the scales are not scored on the same numeric scale. In addition, the authors found that responses to a general health perceptions item ("In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor") was not significantly associated with any of the 5 KDQOL-36 scale scores. In contrast, we find significant and noteworthy correlations in two other datasets. These analytic issues call into question the accuracy and validity of the conclusions of this paper.

Differential item functioning of the CAHPS® In-Center Hemodialysis Survey

PURPOSE

End-stage renal disease patients' experience of care is an integral part of the assessment of the quality of the care provided at hemodialysis centers and is needed to promote patient choice, quality improvement, and accountability. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS®) survey and its equivalence in different age, gender, race, and education subgroups.

METHODS

The ICH-CAHPS survey was administered to 1454 patients from 32 dialysis facilities. For the characteristics compared, the sample had 756 participants younger than 65 years old, 739 men, 516 Black, 567 White, and 970 with less than high school diploma. Three different patient experience constructs were studied including nephrologist's communication and caring, quality of care and operations, and providing information to patients. We used item response theory analysis to examine the possibility of differential item functioning (DIF) by patient age, gender, race, and education separately after controlling for the other DIF characteristics and additional confounding variables including survey mode, mental, and general health status as well as duration on dialysis.

RESULTS

The three constructs studied were unidimensional and no major DIF was observed on the composites. Some non-equivalences were observed when confounders were not controlled for, suggesting that such covariates can be important factors in understanding the possibility of disparity in patients' experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICH-CAHPS is a promising survey to elicit hemodialysis patients' experience that has good psychometric properties and provides a standardized tool for assessing age, gender, race, or education disparity.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Treated With Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Perspective

There is increasing interest in the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into health care research and clinical practice for the benefit of patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis. In a research setting, PROs can be used as a patient-centered primary or secondary outcome in clinical studies. In routine care, PRO data may be used to support service delivery through benchmarking and audit or inform and enhance the care of the individual patient by improving patient-clinician communication. Despite evidence demonstrating the potential benefits of PROs and prioritization of these outcomes by patients, their use in kidney disease remains limited. Although there are significant methodological and operational challenges for the widespread integration of PROs, there is now consensus that this area should be at the forefront of clinical research and implementation science. We discuss the current use of PROs for patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis and identify a roadmap for increasing the evidence base and introducing PROs into mainstream clinical practice.

Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-Item Short Form Survey (KDQOL-36) Normative Values for the United States Dialysis Population and New Single Summary Score

BACKGROUND

The Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item short form survey (KDQOL-36) is a widely used, patient-reported outcome measure for patients on dialysis. Efforts to aid interpretation are needed.

METHODS

We used a sample of 58,851 dialysis patients participating in the Medical Education Institute (MEI) KDQOL Complete program, and 443,947 patients from the US Renal Data System (USRDS) to develop the KDQOL-36 Summary Score (KSS) for the kidney-targeted KDQOL-36 scales (Burdens of Kidney Disease [BKD], Symptoms and Problems of Kidney Disease [SPKD], and Effects of Kidney Disease [EKD]). We also used the MEI and USRDS data to calculate normative values for the Short Form-12 Health Survey's Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS), and the KDQOL-36's BKD, SPKD, and EKD scales for the United States dialysis population. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models for KDQOL-36 kidney-targeted items, evaluated model fit with the comparative fit index (CFI; >0.95 indicates good fit) and root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA; <0.06 indicates good fit), and estimated norms by matching the joint distribution of patient characteristics in the MEI sample to those of the USRDS sample.

RESULTS

A bifactor CFA model fit the data well (RMSEA=0.046, CFI=0.990), supporting the KSS (α=0.91). Mean dialysis normative scores were PCS=37.8 and MCS=50.9 (scored on a T-score metric); and KSS=73.0, BKD=52.8, SPKD=79.0, and EKD=74.1 (0-100 possible scores).

CONCLUSIONS

The KSS is a reliable summary of the KDQOL-36. The United States KDQOL-36 normative facilitate interpretation and incorporation of patient-related outcome measures into kidney disease care.

Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote quality of care in the management of patients with established kidney disease requiring treatment with haemodialysis in the UK (PROM-HD): a qualitative study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) for end-stage kidney disease often report a poor quality of life (QoL) and identify that improving QoL has a higher priority for them than improvements in long-term survival. Research suggests that regular collection and usage of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with chronic conditions may reduce hospitalisation, improve QoL and overall survival. In the UK, despite increased use within research settings, PROMs have not been introduced into the routine clinical care for patients undergoing HD.We report the protocol for 'Using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote quality of care in the management of patients with established kidney disease requiring treatment with haemodialysis in the UK-PROM-HD'. The study aim is to investigate the methodological basis for the use of routine PROMs assessment, particularly using electronic formats (ePROMs) within clinical and research settings, to maximise the potential of PROM use in the management of the care of this patient group.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project will use qualitative methodology to explore, by thematic analysis, the views, perceptions and experiences of patients receiving HD and members of the HD multidisciplinary team regarding the collection and use of PROMs in routine clinical care, particularly ePROMs. This will involve interviews with up to 30 patients or until saturation is achieved and three focus group sessions with approximately 18 members of the clinical team delivering care to this patient group, which will be interpreted broadly to include both professional and non-professional staff.