nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.05.2010 | Brief Communication

Applying cognitive debriefing to pre-test patient-reported outcomes in older people with multiple sclerosis

verfasst von: Michelle Ploughman, Mark Austin, Mark Stefanelli, Marshall Godwin

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 4/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to reduce respondent burden and decrease data errors in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) intended for a postal survey measuring health and lifestyle factors that may affect quality of life in older people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methods

Participants (n = 18) were recruited from a database of outpatient visits. Using the qualitative diagnostic method, cognitive debriefing, participants completed five standardized questionnaires; Frenchay Activities Index, Barthel Index, Simple Lifestyle Indicator Questionnaire, EuroQoL EQ-5D and Personal Resources Questionnaire 2000. PRO item issues and respondent behaviors such as skipping items were recorded. Data collection was an iterative process whereby difficulties experienced by 2–3 subjects were used to modify the survey for following respondents until data saturation was reached.

Results

Most respondents had serious difficulties with at least one PRO item. Response errors fell into three main categories: (1) respondents did not read instructions and completed the item incorrectly, (2) respondents did not understand the question and required examples to clarify and (3) respondents felt that the pre-determined response options did not apply to them. PRO reformatting, minor modifications to item wording and addition of item examples improved precision and reduced respondent burden.

Conclusion

Our findings support the notion that methods such as cognitive debriefing help improve precision of self-reported measures in a special population such as ours.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Leidy, N. K., & Vernon, M. (2008). Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes: content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(5), 363–370.CrossRefPubMed

Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429.CrossRefPubMed

United States Federal Drug Administration Agency. (2006). Guideline for Industry. Patient reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims. Federal Register.

Mullin, P. A., Lohr, K. N., Bresnahan, B. W., & McNulty, P. (2000). Applying cognitive design principles to formatting HRQOL instruments. Quality of Life Research, 9(1), 13–27.CrossRefPubMed

Dillman, D. A., Sinclair, M. D., & Clark, J. R. (1993). Effect of questionnaire length, respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for occupant-addressed census mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 289–304.CrossRef

O’Sullivan, S. B. (2007). Multiple sclerosis. In S. B. O’Sullivan & T. J. Schmitz (Eds.), Physical rehabilitation. Assessment and treatment. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company.

Mallinson, S. (2002). Listening to respondents: A qualitative assessment of the Short-Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire. Social Science and Medicine, 54(1), 11–21.CrossRefPubMed

Hak, T., Willems, D., van der Wal, G., & Visser, F. (2004). A qualitative validation of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 417–426.CrossRefPubMed

Fisk, J. D., Brown, M. G., Sketris, I. S., Metz, L. M., Murray, T. J., & Stadnyk, K. J. (2005). A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 76(1), 58–63.CrossRef

10.

Clarke, H. H., & Schober, M. F. (1992). Asking questions and influencing answers. In J. M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

11.

Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research, 12(3), 229–238.CrossRefPubMed

12.

McColl, E., Meadows, K., & Barofsky, I. (2003). Cognitive aspects of survey methodology and quality of life assessment. Quality of Life Research, 12(3), 217–218.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Turnbull, J. C., Kersten, P., Habib, M., McLellan, L., Mulee, M. A., & George, S. (2000). Validation of the Frenchay Activities Index in a general population aged 16 years and older. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(8), 1034–1038.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Yeo, D., Faleiro, R., & Lincoln, N. B. (1995). Barthel ADL index: A comparison of administration methods. Clinical Rehabilitation, 9(1), 34–39.CrossRef

15.

Godwin, M., Streight, S., Dyachuk, E., van den Hooven, E. C., Ploemacher, J., Seguin, R., et al. (2008). Testing the Simple Lifestyle Indicator Questionnaire: Initial psychometric study. Canadian Family Physician, 54(1), 76–77.PubMed

16.

Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 2(3), 169–180.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Weinert, C., & Brandt, P. A. (1987). Measuring social support with the Personal Resource Questionnaire. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 9(4), 589–602.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Korner-Bitensky, N., Wood-Dauphine, S., Siemiatyki, J., Shapire, S., & Becker, R. (1994). Health-related information postdischarge: Telephone versus face-to- face interviewing. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75(12), 1287–1296.PubMed

19.

Groenvold, M., Klee, M. C., Sprangers, M. A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1997). Validation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire through combined qualitative and quantitative assessment of patient-observer agreement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(4), 441–450.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Turner, R. R., Quittner, A. L., Parasuraman, B. M., Kallich, J. D., Cleeland, C. S. FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Instrument development and selection issues. Value in Health, 10(SUPPL. 2), S86–S93.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Ojanen, V., & Gogates, G. (2006). A briefing on cognitive debriefing. Good Clinical Practice Journal, 13(12), 25–29.

Titel: Applying cognitive debriefing to pre-test patient-reported outcomes in older people with multiple sclerosis
verfasst von: Michelle Ploughman
Mark Austin
Mark Stefanelli
Marshall Godwin
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2010
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 4/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9602-z

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2010

Abandoning the language of “response shift”: a plea for conceptual clarity in distinguishing scale recalibration from true changes in quality of life

Retracted Article: Association of physical fitness with health-related quality of life in Finnish young men

Do not throw out the baby with the bath water: build on current approaches to realize conceptual clarity. Response to Ubel, Peeters, and Smith

Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task

Sampling plan and patient characteristics of the PROMIS pediatrics large-scale survey

Why should changing the bathwater have to harm the baby?