Search

Objectives The purpose of this study was to identify and understand the issues that are relevant to patients with hand conditions. The data were used to develop a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for adults with hand conditions (HAND-Q) and refine it with input from patients and clinician experts.Design Semistructured qualitative interviews were used to understand what matters to patients. Cognitive debriefing was used to refine preliminary HAND-Q scales.Setting Hand clinics in tertiary healthcare centres in Canada, Australia and USA.Participants Eligible participants were English-speaking adults who had experienced hand surgery in the preceding 12 months and were at least 4 weeks post-hand surgery A total of 62 in-depth interviews (females, n=34; mean age=65 years) were conducted to develop an item pool and draft the HAND-Q scales. The preliminary scales were refined through cognitive debriefing interviews with 20 participants and feedback from 25 clinician experts. All interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using a line-by-line approach.Results Qualitative data were organised into two top-level domains of health-related quality of life and satisfaction with treatment outcomes. The scales were refined iteratively, and the field-test version included 319 unique items and 20 independently functioning scales.Conclusions The HAND-Q is a comprehensive PROM developed using extensive patient and clinician expert input, following established guidelines for PROM development and validation. In the next phase, the psychometric properties of the HAND-Q will be established in an international field test, following which the HAND-Q will be available for use in clinical research and practice .

Abstract Background To meaningfully understand outcomes of gender-affirming care, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that are grounded in what matters to individuals seeking care are urgently needed. The objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive PROM to assess outcomes of gender-affirming care in clinical practice, research, and quality initiatives (the GENDER-Q). Methods Internationally established guidelines for PROM development were used to create a field test version of the GENDER-Q. In-depth interviews were conducted from December 2018 to March 2020 with youth and adults aged 16 years and older who were seeking or had received gender-affirming care at outpatient clinics providing gender-affirming care located within tertiary care centers or communities in Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands or the US. Data were analyzed and used to develop a conceptual framework and an item pool, which was used to develop preliminary scales. Between February 2021 to November 2021, iterative feedback was sought from clinicians and patient participants on the scales and used to refine or develop new scales. The revised scales were pilot-tested using a crowd-sourcing platform between February 2022 and April 2022. Results Data from interviews with 84 participants (aged 34 ± 14 years) resulted in a conceptual framework of the GENDER-Q with 13 domains measuring health-related quality of life, sexual, urination, gender practices, voice, hair, face and neck, body, breasts, genital feminization, chest, genital masculinization, and experience of care. Preliminary versions of 44 scales were developed covering most concepts in the conceptual framework. Iterative feedback was obtained from clinician experts (4 to 37 experts per scale; response rate, 67%) and 7–14 patient participants (depending on scale). All scales were refined, and 15 new scales were developed, resulting in 55 scales in the field test version of the GENDER-Q. In total, 601 transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people (aged 25 ± 6 years) participated in the pilot field test and the data were used to make changes to the field test survey. Conclusion The GENDER-Q was developed using extensive input from TGD individuals and clinician experts and represents the most comprehensive set of independently functioning scales that are available to date. An international field test of the GENDER-Q was completed in 2024 and the GENDER-Q is available for use in patient care, clinical research and quality improvement efforts.

Abstract Background Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BRCL) is one of the most common causes of upper extremity (UE) lymphedema in developed nations and substantially impacts health-related quality of life. To advance our understanding of the epidemiology and treatment of BRCL, rigorously developed and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are needed. This study aimed to demonstrate the iterative content validity of a modular UE lymphedema-specific PROM called the LYMPH-Q UE module. Methods A multi-step iterative qualitative approach was used. Semi-structured interview data from in-depth qualitative interviews with adult women (18 years and older) with BCRL were used to develop the first set of the LYMPH-Q UE scales. The content validity of these scales was demonstrated with patient and clinician feedback. Over the course of cognitive debriefing interviews, additional concepts of lymphedema worry and impact on work were identified as missing from the LYMPH-Q UE module. Subsequently, two new qualitative studies (a focus group and in-depth concept elicitation interviews with patients) were conducted, and two new scales were developed to measure lymphedema worry and impact on work life and their content validity was demonstrated. Results Qualitative data from in-depth and cognitive interviews with 15 (age 40–74 years) and 16 (age 38–74 years) women with BRCL, respectively, and feedback from 12 clinical experts, were used to develop and demonstrate the content validity of six LYMPH-Q UE scales measuring symptoms, function, appearance, psychological, information, and arm sleeve. Additionally, data from in-depth interviews with 12 (age 35–72 years) women with UE lymphedema and four focus groups (n = 16 women; age 35–74 years) was used to develop and assess the content validity of two new LYMPH-Q UE scales measuring lymphedema worry and impact on work life. The content validity of the previously established six scales was also demonstrated in these subsequent qualitative studies. Conclusion The LYMPH-Q UE is a modular PROM developed using international guidelines for PROM development and can be used in clinical practice, research, and quality improvement to enhance patient-centered shared decision-making. This study’s innovative and iterative approach to content validation demonstrates that the LYMPH-Q UE is a comprehensive measure that includes important concepts relevant to patients with UE lymphedema.

Abstract Background The quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess the outcomes of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT), a common endocrine disorder that can negatively affect patients’ health-related quality of life due to chronic symptoms, has not been rigorously examined. This systematic review aimed to summarize and evaluate evidence on the measurement properties of PROMs used in adult patients with PHPT, and to provide recommendations for appropriate measure selection. Methods After PROSPERO registration (CRD42023438287), Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Trials were searched for full-text articles in English investigating PROM development, pilot studies, or evaluation of at least one PROM measurement property in adult patients with any clinical form of PHPT. Two reviewers independently identified studies for inclusion and conducted the review following the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Methodology to assess risk of bias, evaluate the quality of measurement properties, and grade the certainty of evidence. Results From 4989 records, nine PROM development or validation studies were identified for three PROMs: the SF-36, PAS, and PHPQoL. Though the PAS demonstrated sufficient test-retest reliability and convergent validity, and the PHPQoL sufficient test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and responsiveness, the certainty of evidence was low-to-very low due to risk of bias. All three PROMs lacked sufficient evidence for content validity in patients with PHPT. Conclusions Based upon the available evidence, the SF-36, PAS, and PHPQoL cannot currently be recommended for use in research or clinical care, raising important questions about the conclusions of studies using these PROMs. Further validation studies or the development of more relevant PROMs with strong measurement properties for this patient population are needed.

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly administered in high-income countries to monitor health-related quality of life of breast cancer patients undergoing breast reconstruction. Although low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face a disproportionate burden of breast cancer, little is known about the use of PROMs in LMICs. This scoping review aims to examine the use of PROMs after post-mastectomy breast reconstruction among patients with breast cancer in LMICs. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched in August 2022 for English-language studies using PROMs after breast reconstruction among patients with breast cancer in LMICs. Study screening and data extraction were completed. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results The search produced 1024 unique studies, 33 of which met inclusion criteria. Most were observational (48.5%) or retrospective (33.3%) studies. Studies were conducted in only 10 LMICs, with 60.5% in China and Brazil and none in low-income countries. Most were conducted in urban settings (84.8%) and outpatient clinics (57.6%), with 63.6% incorporating breast-specific PROMs and 33.3% including breast reconstruction-specific PROMs. Less than half (45.5%) used PROMs explicitly validated for their populations of interest. Only 21.2% reported PROM response rates, ranging from 43.1 to 96.9%. Barriers and facilitators of PROM use were infrequently noted. Conclusions Despite the importance of PROM collection and use in providing patient-centered care, it continues to be limited in middle-income countries and is not evident in low-income countries after breast reconstruction. Further research is necessary to determine effective methods to address the challenges of PROM use in LMICs.

Background:. BODY-Q is a rigorously developed patient-reported outcome measure designed to measure outcomes of weight loss and body contouring patients. To allow interpretation and comparison of BODY-Q scores across studies, normative BODY-Q values were generated from the general population. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of BODY-Q in the normative population. Methods:. Data were collected using two crowdsourcing platforms (Prolific and Amazon Mechanical Turk) in 12 European and North American countries. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) was used to examine reliability and validity of BODY-Q scales. Results:. RMT analysis supported the psychometric properties of BODY-Q in the normative sample with ordered thresholds in all items and nonsignificant chi-square values for 167 of 176 items. Reliability was high with person separation index of greater than or equal to 0.70 in 20 of 22 scales and Cronbach alpha values of greater than or equal to 0.90 in 17 of 22 scales. Mean scale scores measuring appearance, health-related quality of life, and eating-related concerns scales varied as predicted across subgroups with higher scores reported by participants who were more satisfied with their weight. Analysis to explore differential item functioning by sample (normative versus field-test) flagged some potential issues, but subsequent comparison of adjusted and unadjusted person estimates provided evidence that the scoring algorithm worked equivalently for the normative sample as in the field-test samples. Conclusions:. The BODY-Q scales showed acceptable reliability and validity in the normative sample. The normative values can be used as reference in research and clinical practice in combination with local estimates for parallel analysis and comparison.

Abstract Purpose The BREAST-Q is the most used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in breast cancer surgery. The purposes of this study were to re-examine the content validity of BREAST-Q cancer modules (mastectomy, lumpectomy and reconstruction) and to determine the need for new scales. Methods Interviews were conducted with women with breast cancer (Stage 0–4, any treatment), and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive (based on original BREAST-Q conceptual framework) and inductive (new codes from the data) content analysis approaches were used to analyze the data. The number of codes that mapped to BREAST-Q were recorded. Results Dataset included 3948 codes from 58 participants. Most of the breast (n = 659, 96%) and all psychosocial (n = 127, 100%), sexual (n = 179, 100%) and radiation-related (n = 79, 100%) codes mapped to BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breast, Psychosocial Wellbeing, Sexual Wellbeing and Adverse Effects of Radiation scales, respectively. For the physical wellbeing codes (n = 939) for breast/chest and arm, 34% (n = 321) mapped to the Physical Wellbeing-Chest scale. Most of the abdomen codes (n = 311) mapped to Satisfaction with Abdomen (n = 90, 76%) and Physical Wellbeing-Abdomen (n = 171, 89%) scales. Codes that did not map (n = 697, 30%) covered breast sensation and lymphedema. Concerns related to fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were most reported and did not map to BREAST-Q. Conclusion The BREAST-Q, which was developed using extensive patient input more than a decade ago, is still relevant. To ensure the BREAST-Q remains comprehensive, new scales for upper extremity lymphedema, breast sensation, fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were developed.

Abstract Purpose The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological well-being will likely be long-lasting. Efforts directed towards monitoring the onset and progression of distress and mental health disorders are needed to identify and prioritize at-risk populations. This study assesses the psychological well-being of the United States (US) general population during the early phase of the COVID-19 COVID-19 pandemic using validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods A cross-sectional study design was used. Adults (18 years or older) who could read and write in English were recruited through Prolific in May 2020. Participants completed a REDCap survey including demographic and health-related questions and three PROMs measuring global health (PROMIS-10 Global Health), anxiety [Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7)], and depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)]. A multivariable linear regression was used to identify key factors associated with worse psychological well-being. Results Mean age of the 2023 participants was 31.92 ± 11.57 years (range, 18–82). Participants were mainly White (64.7%, n = 1309), female (52.2%, n = 1057), working full-time before the pandemic (43.5%, n = 879), and completed a college, trade, or university degree (40.7%, n = 823). Most participants reported mild to severe anxiety (57.3%, n = 1158) and depression (60%, n = 1276) on the GAD-7 and PHQ-9, respectively. Patient characteristics associated with worse psychological well-being included: age ≤ 39 years, non-White, female or gender diverse, BMI ≥ 30, uninsured, annual income ≤ $49,999 (USD), lower educational attainment, and belief that COVID-19 is deadlier than flu. Conclusion PROMs can be used to assess and monitor psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic and to inform the planning and delivery of targeted public health interventions to support at-risk populations.

Plain English summary Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow doctors and researchers to understand the patient perspective, such as how they are doing physically, mentally, or socially. When used, PROs can improve health and increase satisfaction of patients. Many clinics and hospitals are interested in using PROs in everyday care. Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies are also using information from PROs to decide if the care they give is good quality. Unfortunately, certain groups of patients, such as racial and ethnic minorities and patients with low income, report worse PROs. Because of these differences, it will be important to make sure that PROs are being collected from all people, but not much is known regarding how this has been done. This study demonstrates what is known so far with regard to using PROs in everyday clinical care for these diverse patient groups. Findings from this study show that PROs can be successfully collected, but more work is needed in certain medical fields, and some types of patients have specific needs, concerns, or preferences with regard to PRO collection.

Abstract Background Generic preference-based measures (PBM), though commonly used, may not be optimal for use in economic evaluations of breast cancer interventions. No breast cancer-specific PBM currently exists, and the generic PBMs fail to capture the unique concerns of women with breast cancer (e.g., body image, appearance, treatment-specific adverse effects). Hence, the objective of this study was to develop a breast cancer-specific PBM, the BREAST-Q Utility module. Methods Women diagnosed with breast cancer (stage 0–4, any treatment) were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in Canada and one in the US. The study followed an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach, whereby semi-structured interviews were conducted and at the end of the interview, participants were asked to list their top five health-related quality of life (HRQOL) concerns and to rate the importance of each item on the BREAST-Q. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. Constant comparison was used to refine the codes and develop a conceptual framework. Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated to develop the content of the Utility module that was refined through 2 rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and feedback from experts. Results Interviews were conducted with 57 women aged 55 ± 10 years. A conceptual framework was developed from 3948 unique codes specific to breasts, arms, abdomen, and cancer experience. Five top-level domains were HRQOL (i.e., physical, psychological, social, and sexual well-being) and appearance. Data from the interviews, top 5 HRQOL concerns, and BREAST-Q item ratings were used to inform dimensions for inclusion in the Utility module. Feedback from women with breast cancer (N = 9) and a multidisciplinary group of experts (N = 27) was used to refine the module. The field-test version of the HSCS consists of 10 unique dimensions. Each dimension is measured with 1 or 2 candidate items that have 4–5 response levels each. Conclusion The field-test version of the BREAST-Q Utility module was derived from extensive patient and expert input. This comprehensive approach ensured that the content of the Utility module is relevant, comprehensive, and includes concerns that matter the most to women with breast cancer.

Objectives. To culturally adapt and translate the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire into Hindi (DASH-H) and assess its reliability, validity, and responsiveness in adult patients with shoulder tendonitis. Study Design. Descriptive methodological research, using longitudinal design. Setting. Outpatient clinic. Participants. 30 adult patients aged 53.3 ± 6.9 y with shoulder tendonitis. Data Analyses. DASH-H, visual analogue scales for pain (VAS-P) and disability (VAS-D), and shoulder active range of motion (AROM) were assessed at baseline, 2-3 days later, and 4-5 weeks after baseline. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) assessed test-retest reliability of these scales and responsiveness was examined by calculating effect sizes (ES) and standardized response means (SRM). Cronbach’s alpha (CA) was used to examine internal consistency of DASH-H. Convergent construct validity of DASH-H with VAS scales and shoulder AROM was determined using Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients (r). Results. DASH-H demonstrated good test-retest reliability and internal consistency (ICC and CA both > 0.75) and excellent responsiveness (ES = 2.2, SRM = 6.1). DASH-H showed high concordance (r=-0.71, p-0.4, p