Search

ObjectiveTo assign clinical meanings to the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores through the development of score bands using the anchor-based approach.Design and settingA cross-sectional online study recruited participants through UK-based patient support groups, research support platforms (HealthWise Wales, Autism Research Centre-Cambridge University database, Join Dementia Research) and through social service departments in Wales.ParticipantsFamily members/partners (aged ≥18 years) of patients with different health conditions.InterventionFamily members/partners of patients completed the FROM-16 questionnaire and a Global Question (GQ).Main outcome measureVarious FROM-16 band sets were devised as a result of mapping of mean, median and mode of the GQ scores to FROM-16 total score, and receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve cut-off values. The band set with the best agreement with GQ based on weighted kappa was selected.ResultsA total of 4413 family members/partners (male=1533, 34.7%; female=2858, 64.8%; Prefer not to say=16, 0.4%; other=6, 0.14%) of people with a health condition (male=1994, 45.2%; female=2400, 54.4%; Prefer not to say=12, 0.3%; other=7, 0.16%) completed the online survey: mean FROM-16 score=15.02 (range 0–32, SD=8.08), mean GQ score=2.32 (range 0–4, SD=1.08). The proposed FROM-16 score bandings are: 0–1=no effect on the quality of life of family member; 2–8=small effect on family member; 9–16=moderate effect on family member; 17–25=very large effect on family member; 26–32=extremely large effect on family member (weighted kappa=0.60).ConclusionThe FROM-16 score descriptor bands provide new information to clinicians about interpreting scores and score changes, allowing better-informed treatment decisions for patients and their families. The score banding of FROM-16, along with a short administration time, demonstrates its potential to support holistic clinical practice.

EDITOR, - We agree with Richard Smith that a wealth of medical science is being published in China but is getting no exposure in English speaking countries.1 But his suggestion that individuals should contact the appropriate directors in Beijing for information, although helpful, is unwieldy and unlikely to be followed up by those without specific professional interests. General medical readers need to be more easily kept informed, and one way of helping them in this is for English language journals to carry short summaries of key work from the current Chinese medical literature. The June 1994 edition of the Journal of Dermatological Treatment, for example, devoted two pages to summarising eight articles selected by eminent Chinese dermatologists.2 We encourage other editors to follow this example. 1. 1.↵1. Smith R .Chinese medical journals: getting in touch.BMJ1994;309: 74. (9 July.) [OpenUrl][1][FREE Full Text][2] 2. 2.↵International literature reviews: Chinese journal review.Journal of Dermatological Treatment1994;5:109–10. [OpenUrl][3] # English is a barrier {#article-title-4} EDITOR, - Richard Smith highlights the wealth of material in Chinese medical journals.1 During an attachment to the head and neck … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.stitle%253DBMJ%26rft.issn%253D0007-1447%26rft.aulast%253DSmith%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%26rft.volume%253D309%26rft.issue%253D6947%26rft.spage%253D74%26rft.epage%253D74%26rft.atitle%253DChinese%2Bmedical%2Bjournals%253A%2Bgetting%2Bin%2Btouch%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F8038669%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=309/6947/74&atom=%2Fbmj%2F309%2F6955%2F666.2.atom [3]: {openurl}?query=rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx