nach oben

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Erschienen in:

01.02.2017 | Original Research Article

Readability and Comprehension of the Geriatric Depression Scale and PROMIS^® Physical Function Items in Older African Americans and Latinos

verfasst von: Sylvia H. Paz, Loretta Jones, José L. Calderón, Ron D. Hays

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 1/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Depression and physical function are particularly important health domains for the elderly. The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®) physical function item bank are two surveys commonly used to measure these domains. It is unclear if these two instruments adequately measure these aspects of health in minority elderly.

Objective

The aim of this study was to estimate the readability of the GDS and PROMIS^® physical function items and to assess their comprehensibility using a sample of African American and Latino elderly.

Methods

Readability was estimated using the Flesch–Kincaid and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulae for English versions, and a Spanish adaptation of the FRE formula for the Spanish versions. Comprehension of the GDS and PROMIS^® items by minority elderly was evaluated with 30 cognitive interviews.

Results

Readability estimates of a number of items in English and Spanish of the GDS and PROMIS^® physical functioning items exceed the U.S. recommended 5th-grade threshold for vulnerable populations, or were rated as ‘fairly difficult’, ‘difficult’, or ‘very difficult’ to read. Cognitive interviews revealed that many participants felt that more than the two (yes/no) GDS response options were needed to answer the questions. Wording of several PROMIS^® items was considered confusing, and interpreting responses was problematic because they were based on using physical aids.

Conclusions

Problems with item wording and response options of the GDS and PROMIS^® physical function items may reduce reliability and validity of measurement when used with minority elderly.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Blazer D, Williams CD. Epidemiology of dysphoric and depression in an elderly population. Am J Psychiatry. 1980;137:439–44.CrossRefPubMed

Macdonald AJD. Mental health in old age. BMJ. 1997;315:413–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Balfour JL, Kaplan GA. Neighborhood environment and loss of physical function in older adults: evidence from the Alameda County Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155:507–15.CrossRefPubMed

West LA, Cole S, Goodkind D, et al. 65+ in the United States: 2010. Special studies. Current population reports. US Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau. 2014. Available at: http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p23-212.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2016.

Chang C-H, Wright BD, Cella D, Hays RD. The SF-36 physical and mental health factors were confirmed in cancer and HIV/AIDS patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:68–72.CrossRefPubMed

A profile of older Americans: 2011. Administration on aging. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2011. Available at http://www.aoa.gov/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2011/docs/2011profile.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2016.

US Census Bureau projections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now. United States Census Bureau. 2012. Available at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-243.html. Accessed 2 June 2016.

Passel JS, Cohn DV. US population projections: 2005–2050. Pew Research Center. 2008. Available at: http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/85.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2016.

Stewart AL, Napoles-Springer AM. Health-related quality-of-life assessments in diverse population groups in the United States. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II102–24.PubMed

10.

Stewart L, Napoles-Springer AM. Advancing health disparities research: can we afford to ignore measurement issues? Med Care. 2003;41(11):1207–20.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Hargraves LJ, Hadley J. The contribution of insurance coverage and community resources to reducing racial/ethnic disparities in access to care. Health Serv Res. 2003;38:809.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Lubben JE, Weiler PG, Chi I. Health practices of the elderly poor. Am J Public Health. 1989;79:731–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Economic Policy Institute. Majority of elderly Blacks and Hispanics are on the cusp of poverty, a new EPI report finds. Available at: http://www.epi.org/press/majority-elderly-blacks-hispanics-cusp-poverty/. Accessed 2 June 2016.

14.

McWilliams JM. Health consequences of uninsurance among adults in the United States: recent evidence and implications. Milbank Q. 2009;87:443–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, et al. Patient-reported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(4):137–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Calderon JL, Beltran RA. Pitfalls in health communication: healthcare policy, institution, structure, and process. MedGenMed. 2004;6(1):9.PubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Calderon JL, Zadshir A, Norris K. A survey of kidney disease and risk-factor information on the world wide web. MedGenMed. 2004;6(4):3.PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Fongwa MN, Setodji CM, Paz SH, et al. Readability and missing data rates in CAHPS 2.0 Medicare Survey in African American and White Medicare respondents. Health Outcomes Res Med. 2010;1(1):e39–49.CrossRef

19.

Johnson C. Proposal guidelines for new content on the 2007–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). 13 Dec 2006. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/proposal_guidelines_2007-8.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2016.

20.

Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res. 1983;17:37–49.CrossRef

21.

Greenberg SA. The Geriatric Depression Scale. The Hartford Institute for Geriatric Nursing, New York University, College of Nursing. Available at: https://consultgeri.org/try-this/general-assessment/issue-4. Accessed 2 June 2016.

22.

Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J, et al. Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:17–33.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Bruce B, Fries JF, Ambrosini D, et al. Better assessment of physical function: item improvement is neglected but essential. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11(6):R191.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Amtmann D, et al. Upper-extremity and mobility subdomains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) adult physical functioning item bank. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:2291–6.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Fries JF, et al. Responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short-form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(1):104–7.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res. 1983;17:37–49.CrossRef

27.

Instructional Web Server. The University of Western Ontario. BioPsychoSocial Assessment Tools for the Elderly—Assessment Summary Sheet. Available at: https://instruct.uwo.ca/kinesiology/9641/Assessments/Psychological/Ger_DS.html. Accessed 2 June 2016.

28.

Burke WJ, Roccaforte WH, Wengel SP. The short form of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a comparison with the 30-item form. Recent evidence and development of a shorter version. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1991;4:173–8.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Stanford/VA/NIA Aging Clinical Research Center (ACRC), Stanford University. Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/~yesavage/GDS.html. Accessed 2 June 2016.

30.

Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Cella D, Hernandez L, Bonomi AE, et al. Spanish language translation and initial validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy quality-of-life instrument. Med Care. 1998;36:1407–18.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Cella D, Gershon R, Bass M, et al. Assessment Center. PROMIS Health Organization. 2007–2013. Available at: https://www.assessmentcenter.net/documents/PROMIS%20Physical%20Function%20Scoring%20Manual.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2016.

33.

PROMIS. Dynamic tools to measure health outcomes from the patient perspective. National Institutes of Health. Available at: http://www.nihpromis.org/. Accessed 2 June 2016.

34.

Meade C, Smith C. Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 1991;17:153–8.CrossRef

35.

Pinero-Lopez MA, Modamio CP, Fernandez-Lastra C, et al. Quality health information: readability-measurement formulas for English and Spanish written materials. Eur J Clin Pharm. 2013;15(2):136–9.

36.

Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005.CrossRef

37.

Blair J, Brick PD. Methods for the analysis of cognitive interviews. Available at: https://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2010/Files/307865_59514.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2016.

38.

Knafl K, Deatrick J, Gallo A, et al. The analysis and interpretation of cognitive interviews for instrument development. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(2):224–34.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Calderon JL, Morales LS, Liu H, et al. Variation in the readability of items within surveys. Am J Med Qual. 2006;21(1):49–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Nutbeam D. Defining and measuring health literacy: what can we learn from literacy studies? Int J Public Health. 2009;54:303–5.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Clerehan R, Buchbinder R, Moodie J. A linguistic framework for assessing the quality of written patient information: its use in assessing methotrexate information for rheumatoid arthritis. Health Educ Res. 2005;20(3):334–44.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Morales LS, Weidmer BO, Hays RD. Readability of CAHPS 2.0 child and adult core surveys. In: Lynamon ML, Kulka RA, editors. 7th conference on health survey research methods. Hyattsville: DHHS; 2001. Publication. no. (PHS) 01-1013. pp. 83–90.

43.

Paz SH, Liu H, Fongwa MN, Morales LS, et al. Readability estimates for commonly used health-related quality of life surveys. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:889–900.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Ávila de Tomás JF, Veiga Paulet JA. Legibilidad de la información sanitariaofrecida a los ciudadanos. Una paroximación a través del Índice de Flesch. Centro de Salud. 2002;(Diciembre):589-597.

45.

Calderón JL, Fleming E, Gannon MR, et al. Applying an expanded set of cognitive design principles to formatting the Kidney Early Evaluation Program (KEEP) longitudinal survey. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;51(4 Suppl 2):S83–92.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Mullin PA, Lohr KN, Bresnahan BW, et al. Applying cognitive design principles to formatting HRQOL instruments. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(1):13–27.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Krosnick JA, Alwin DF. An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opin Q. 1987;51:201–19.CrossRef

48.

Lesher EL, Berryhill JS. Validation of the Geriatric Depression Scale—Short Form among inpatients. J Clin Psychol. 1994;50(2):256–60.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Kohout F, Berkman L, Evans D, et al. Two shorter forms of the CES-D Depression Symptoms Index. J Aging Health. 1993;5(2):179–93.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Amtmann D, Bamer A, Cook K, et al. Adapting PROMIS physical function items for users of assistive technology. Disabil Health J. 2010;3(2):e9.CrossRef

51.

Paz SH, Spritzer KL, Morales LS, et al. Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS®) Spanish-Language Physical Functioning Items. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1819–30.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Paz SH, Spritzer KL, Morales LS, et al. Age-related differential item functioning for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS^®) Physical Functioning Items. Prim Health Care. 2013;3(131):12086. doi:10.4172/2167-1079.1000131

53.

Lynch AD, Dodds NE, Yu L, et al. Individuals with knee impairments identify items in need of clarification in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®) pain interference and physical function item banks: a qualitative study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Readability and Comprehension of the Geriatric Depression Scale and PROMIS® Physical Function Items in Older African Americans and Latinos
verfasst von: Sylvia H. Paz
Loretta Jones
José L. Calderón
Ron D. Hays
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2017
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 1/2017
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0191-y

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Content Validity for the VVSymQ® Instrument: A New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for the Assessment of Varicose Veins Symptoms

Item Reduction, Scoring, and First Validation of the ACCEPTance by the Patients of their Treatment (ACCEPT©) Questionnaire

EQ-5D Health Utility Scores: Data from a Comprehensive Canadian Cancer Centre

Patient Preferences for Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Literature Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis of Patients’ Experiences and Perceptions of Seeking and Using Benzodiazepines and Z-Drugs: Towards Safer Prescribing

What Outcomes are Important for Gout Patients? In-Depth Qualitative Research into the Gout Patient Experience to Determine Optimal Endpoints for Evaluating Therapeutic Interventions