Search

The importance of content validity in developing patient reported outcomes (PRO) instruments is stressed by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. Content validity is the extent to which an instrument measures the important aspects of concepts that developers or users purport it to assess. A PRO instrument measures the concepts most significant and relevant to a patient's condition and its treatment. For PRO instruments, items and domains as reflected in the scores of an instrument should be important to the target population and comprehensive with respect to patient concerns. Documentation of target population input in item generation, as well as evaluation of patient understanding through cognitive interviewing, can provide the evidence for content validity. Developing content for, and assessing respondent understanding of, newly developed PRO instruments for medical product evaluation will be discussed in this two-part ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Topics include the methods for generating items, documenting item development, coding of qualitative data from item generation, cognitive interviewing, and tracking item development through the various stages of research and preparing this tracking for submission to regulatory agencies. Part 1 covers elicitation of key concepts using qualitative focus groups and/or interviews to inform content and structure of a new PRO instrument. Part 2 covers the instrument development process, the assessment of patient understanding of the draft instrument using cognitive interviews and steps for instrument revision. The two parts are meant to be read together. They are intended to offer suggestions for good practices in planning, executing, and documenting qualitative studies that are used to support the content validity of PRO instruments to be used in medical product evaluation., (Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim was to compare two individualized patient reported outcomes or the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life - Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) measuring quality of life in general, and the disease-related version (SEIQoL-DR) measuring quality of life related to disease. Both instruments have been used in clinical practice settings within oncology. The instruments were compared with regard to feasibility, the areas nominated by patients as important and patients' ratings of how they were doing in these areas (Index scores)., Material and Methods: The study included 40 patients with gastrointestinal cancer. All patients completed both versions of the instrument on a touch screen computer in relation to a medical consultation. Firstly, the participants were invited to nominate the five domains she/he currently considered to be most important in life. Secondly, they were asked to rate how they were doing in each of these domains. Finally, they were asked to quantify the relative importance of each area. Cohen's effect sizes were calculated to illuminate the clinical importance of mean value differences., Results: Both instruments took less than ten minutes to complete and the procedure was considered feasible by both patients and interviewers. The proportion of patients nominating the same areas in the two versions did not differ, however, the SEIQoL-DW Index score was significantly higher than the corresponding score for the SEIQoL-DR. The detected difference in the mean score measured by effect size was medium., Conclusion: The magnitude of the effect size of the difference in Index score imply that the two versions tap into different constructs, i.e. quality of life (QoL) versus health-related QoL (HRQL), supporting the construct validity of the two versions of the instrument. The SEIQoL-DW and the SEIQoL-DR should be considered as complementary rather than interchangeable when used in patients with cancer.

Background: Safety culture assessment is increasingly recognized as an important component in healthcare quality improvement, also in pharmacies. One of the most commonly used and rigorously validated tools to measure safety culture is the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire; SAQ. This study presents the validation of the SAQ for use in Swedish pharmacies. The psychometric properties of the translated questionnaire are presented, Methods: The original English language version of the SAQ was translated and adapted to the Swedish context and distributed by e-mail. The survey was carried out on a national basis, covering all 870 Swedish community pharmacies. In total, 7,244 questionnaires were distributed. Scale psychometrics were analysed using Cronbach alphas and intercorrelations among the scales. Multiple group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted., Results: SAQ data from 828 community pharmacies in Sweden, including 4,090 (60.22%) pharmacy personnel out of 6,683 eligible respondents, were received. There were 252 (28.97%) pharmacies that met the inclusion criteria of having at least 5 respondents and a minimum response rate of 60% within that pharmacy.The coefficient alpha value for each of the SAQ scales ranged from .72 to .89. The internal consistency results, in conjunction with the confirmatory factor analysis results, demonstrate that the Swedish translation of the SAQ has acceptable to good psychometric properties. Perceptions of the pharmacy (Teamwork Climate, Job Satisfaction, Perceptions of Management, Safety Climate, and Working Conditions) were moderately to highly correlated with one another whereas attitudes about stress (Stress Recognition) had only low correlations with other factors. Perceptions of management showed the most variability across pharmacies (SD = 26.66), whereas Stress Recognition showed the least (SD = 18.58). There was substantial variability ranging from 0% to 100% in the percent of positive scores for each of the factors across the 252 pharmacies., Conclusions: The Swedish translation of the SAQ demonstrates acceptable construct validity, for capturing the frontline perspective of safety culture of community pharmacy staff. The psychometric results reported here met or exceeded standard guidelines, which is consistent with previous studies using the SAQ in other healthcare settings and other languages.

Purpose: To review published studies regarding the use, feasibility and psychometric performance of the schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life-direct weighting (SEIQoL-DW) in clinical research., Methods: Systematic literature review. Studies using the SEIQoL-DW were included if they were published in English and employed a quantitative design. A pre-defined checklist was used to analyse the reported results., Results: Thirty-nine relevant articles were identified. The SEIQoL-DW has been included in studies relating to a variety of populations, including those who are severely ill. The results of convergent and discriminant validity support our hypotheses in which SEIQoL-DW was expected to correlate moderately to high with measures of global QoL, life satisfaction and mental health and weakly with measures of functional status and health., Conclusion: The SEIQoL-DW appears to be a feasible and valid instrument. The lack of association between the Index score and health, functional status, demographic and clinical parameters may be explained by the instrument's focus on global QoL and by that of the idiographic measurement approach reflecting the capacity of a patient to value domains other than health in life, despite having health problems. Nevertheless, continued psychometric evaluation in large populations with a longitudinal design is recommended.

This study explored patients' and oncologists' perceptions of using a computer-administered, individualized quality-of-life (QOL) instrument to support an oncologic consultation. Twenty patients with gastrointestinal cancer (50% female; mean age 60 years) at two hospitals in Sweden completed the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weight (SEIQoL-DW) and the Disease-Related (DR) SEIQoL-DW and brought the results to the consultation. Afterwards, interviews were conducted with all patients and six of eight doctors. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using an interpretivist approach. Most patients and doctors believed that the instrument would facilitate detection of patients' areas of concern and would support monitoring of patients' QOL. This tool may empower the patient, give the doctor a broader picture of the patient, and influence clinical decision-making. The SEIQoL-DW may be a systematic method of stimulating patient-centered care. It apparently encourages patients to reflect upon their own situation and allows them to be seen as whole persons. However, further quantitative evaluation of the intervention's outcomes is required.

Computer administrered QoL instruments are increasingly used to assess outcomes. Our aim was to assess the feasibility and validity of an electronic version of the SEIQoL-DW. Pharmacy students (n = 40; mean age 25; 92% women) were administrated both the touch screen and the paper-and-pen versions in a cross-over study. The majority of the students (65 %) preferred the computer version, while almost a third (27%) preferred the paper and pen version. There was no overall order effect and the SEOQoL-DW index mean scores differed with 1.2 between the two versions. Those respondents completing the computer version first had higher scores than those completing the computer version second. The ICC comparing the formats was 0.77 (CI: 0.57-0.88) and the limits of agreement method showed that 85% of the observations were within +/- 1-10 units. Most students (82%) judged their QoL as being equivalent to their SEIQoL-DW score. The computer version of the SEIQoL-DW seems to be feasible and acceptable and seems to be valid alternative to the paper and pen version. However, further validation studies in larger patient populations are needed.

Background: Quality of life (QoL) is now established as an important outcome for evaluating the impact of disease, and for assessing the efficacy of treatments. However, individuals change with time and the basis on which they make a QoL judgement may also change, a phenomenon increasingly referred to as response shift. Here, the individual may change his or her internal standards, values, and/or conceptualization on the target construct as a result of external factors such as a treatment or a change in health status. This has important implications for assessing the effects of treatments as a change in QoL may reflect a response shift, a treatment effect, or a complex combination of both. In this study, we used an individualised quality of life (IQoL) measure, the SEIQoL, together with a then-test to determine whether response shift would influence the measurement of treatment efficacy in edentulous patients., Methods: Data are reported here for the first phase of a randomised controlled clinical trial designed to assess the impact, on IQoL, of implant supported dentures compared with high quality conventional dentures. IQoL was measured using the SEIQoL-DW in 117 patients (mean age 64.8; 32% male) at baseline (T1) and 3 months (T2) after receiving high quality conventional dentures. The work was carried out in dental teaching hospitals in Dublin and Belfast., Results: Unadjusted SEIQoL index scores revealed no significant impact of treatment at three months (baseline: 75.0; 3 months: 73.2, p = .33, n.s.). However, the then-test at 3 months revealed that patients retrospectively rated their baseline IQoL as significantly lower (P < .001) than they had rated it at the time (then-test baseline: 69.2). Comparison of the 3 month scores with this readjusted baseline indicated a significant treatment effect (then-test baseline: 69.2; 3 months: 73.2, p = 0.016). 81% of patients nominated at least one different IQoL domain at 3 months., Conclusion: The positive impact of denture treatment for edentulous patients on IQoL was seen only when response shifts were taken into consideration. The nature of the response shifts was highly complex but the data indicated a degree of re-conceptualization and reprioritisation. Assessment of the impact of treatments using patient-generated reports must take account of the adaptive nature of patients.