Top

Optie A:

Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
Optie B:

Deel de link per e-mail
Link delen

vorige artikel Communication changes with laryngectomy and imp...

volgende artikel Perceived social support from teachers and clas...

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

13-11-2018 | Review | Uitgave 4/2019

Individualized health-related quality of life instrument Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) and its adaptations: a critical appraisal

Tijdschrift:: Quality of Life Research > Uitgave 4/2019

Auteurs:: Sana Ishaque, Jeffrey A. Johnson, Sunita Vohra

» Toegang tot de volledige tekst krijgen

Abstract

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is increasingly recognized for its importance in health research. As there is increasing recognition of the inter-individual difference in response to therapeutic interventions, it may be helpful to apply individualized measures of HRQL. The MYMOP is a commonly used example of such measures, although several adaptations have been developed.

Objective

This review was conducted to identify adaptations of MYMOP, and evaluate the measurement properties of MYMOP and its adaptations.

Methods

Adaptations were identified using MYMOP website and personal communication, supplemented by a SCOPUS search in April 2017. Bibliographies of included studies were hand-searched. COSMIN criteria were used to evaluate the measurement properties.

Results

Sixteen studies were included in this review. Adaptations were developed to evaluate individualized therapies in cancer, psychiatry, and acupuncture. The included measures were MYMOP, measure yourself concern and wellbeing, psychological outcome profiles (PSYCHLOPS), and MYMOP-pictorial (MYMOP-P). The quality of the measurement properties varied; none of the included measures met all currently recommended quality criteria for measurement properties.

Conclusion

Current literature provides evidence that MYMOP and its adaptations offer individualized assessment of patient-centered outcomes, and thereby provide a means to understand heterogeneity of treatment effects. However, current recommendations for psychometric testing suggest further validation of these measures would be beneficial.

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Hier inloggen

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Podotherapeut Totaal

Binnen de bundel kunt u gebruik maken van boeken, tijdschriften, e-learnings, web-tv's en uitlegvideo's. BSL Podotherapeut Totaal is overal toegankelijk; via uw PC, tablet of smartphone.

Meer informatie

Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196, 129–136. CrossRef

Mayo, E. N., et al. ISOQOL Dictionary of Quality of Life and Health Outcomes Measurement. 2015; First Edition.

Sales, C. M. D. (2017). Seeing the person in the patient: Making the case for individualized proms in mental healthcare. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 13(3), 184–187. CrossRef

Sales, C. M. D., & Alves, P. C. G. (2016). Patient-centred assessment in psychotherapy: A Review of individualized tools. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 23(3), 265–283.

Wiering, B., de Boer, D., & Delnoij, D. (2017). Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expectations, 20(1), 11–23. CrossRefPubMed

Bowling, A. (1995). What things are important in people’s lives? A survey of the public’s judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1447–1462. CrossRef

Carr, A. J., Gibson, B., & Robinson, P. G. (2001). Measuring quality of life is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? British Medical Journal, 322, 1240–1243. CrossRefPubMed

Ostenfeld-Rosenthal, A., & Johannessen, H. (2014). How to capture patients’ concerns and related changes: Comparing the MYCaW questionnaire, semi-structured interview and a priority list of outcome areas. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 22, 690–700. CrossRefPubMed

Ernst, E., & Hung, S. K. (2011). Great expectations: What do patients using complementary and alternative medicine hope for? Patient, 4, 89–101. CrossRefPubMed

10.

Varadhan, R., Segal, J. B., Boyd, C. M., Wu, A. W., & Weiss, C. O. (2013). A framework for the analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66, 818–825. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Dahabreh, I. J., Hayward, R., & Kent, D. M. (2016). Using group data to treat individuals: Understanding heterogeneous treatment effects in the age of precision medicine and patient-centred evidence. International Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 2184–2193.

12.

Aburub, A. S., & Mayo, N. E. (2017). A review of the application, feasibiliyt, and the psychometric properties of the individualized measures in cancer. Quality of Life Research, 26, 1091–1104. CrossRefPubMed

13.

Wettergren, L., Kettis-Lindblad, Å, Sprangers, M., et al. (2009). The use, feasibility and psychometric properties of an individualized quality-of-life instrument: a systematic review of the SEIQoL-DW. Quality of Life Research, 18, 737–746. CrossRefPubMed

14.

Hickey, A. M., Bury, G., O’Boyle, C. A., Bradley, F., O’Kelly, F. D., & Shannon, W. (1996). A new short form individual quality of life measure (SEIQoL-DW): Application in a cohort of individuals with HIV/AIDS. BMJ, 313, 29–33. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Moons, P., Marquet, K., Budts, W., & De Geest, S. (2004). Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the “schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life-direct weighting” (SEIQoL-DW) in congenital heart disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 27. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Lhussier, M., Watson, B., Reed, J., & Clarke, C. L. (2005). The SEIQoL and functional status: How do they relate? Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 19, 403–409. CrossRefPubMed

17.

Martin, F., Camfield, L., Rodham, K., et al. (2007). Twelve uears-experience with the Patient Generated Index (PGI) of quality of life: A graded structured review. Quality of Life Research, 16, 705–715. CrossRefPubMed

18.

Mayo, N. E., Aburub, A., Brouillette, M. J., et al. (2017). In support of an individualized approach to assessing quality of life: comparison between Patient Generated Index and standardized measures across four health conditions. Quality of Life Research, 26, 601–609. CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., Leng, M., Russell, I. T., & MacDonald, L. M. (1994). A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. The patient-generated index. Medical Care, 32, 1109–1126. CrossRefPubMed

20.

Paterson, C. (1996). Measuring outcomes in primary care: A patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey. BMJ, 312, 1016–1020. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research., 27, 1147. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42. CrossRef

23.

Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., et al. (2018). COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality Life Research., 27, 1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4. CrossRef

24.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 737–745. CrossRefPubMed

25.

Quality of life and pharmaco-economics in clinical trials (Book Review) R. Launois. Quality of Life Research, 1 January 1997, Vol. 6(1), pp. 97-98 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

26.

Chen, A. Y., Frankowski, R., Bishop-Leone, J., Hebert, T., Leyk, S., Lewin, J., & Goepfert, H. (2001). The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: The M. D. anderson dysphagia inventory. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 127, 870–876.

27.

Guyatt, G. H., Kirshner, B., & Jaeschke, R. (1992). Measuring health status: What are the necessary measurement properties? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 1341–1345. CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ganz, P. A., Lee, J. J., & Siau, J. (1991). Quality of life assessment. an independent prognostic variable for survival in lung cancer. Cancer, 67, 3131–3135. CrossRefPubMed

29.

Idler, E. L., & Angel, R. J. (1990). Self-rated health and mortality in the NHANES-I epidemiologic follow-up study. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 446–452. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Ashworth, M., Shepherd, M., Christey, J., Matthews, V., Wright, K., Parmentier, H., Robinson, S., & Godfrey, E. (2004). A client-centred psychometric instrument: The development of “PSYCHLOPS“(“psychological outcome profile”). Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 4, 27. CrossRef

31.

Ashworth, M., Evans, C., & Clement, S. (2009). Measuring psychological outcomes after cognitive behaviour therapy in primary care: A comparison between a new patient-generated measure “pSYCHLOPS” psychological outcome profiles and “hADS” hospital anxiety and depression scale. Journal of Mental Health, 18, 169–177. CrossRef

32.

Ashworth, M., Robinson, S., Evans, C., Shepherd, M., Conolly, A., & Rowlands, G. (2007). What does an idiographic measure (PSYCHLOPS) tell us about the spectrum of psychological issues and scores on a nomothetic measure (CORE-OM)? Primary Care and Community Psychiatry, 12, 7–12.

33.

Ashworth, M., Robinson, S., Godfrey, E., Parmentier, H., Shepherd, M., Christey, J., Wright, K., & Matthews, V. (2005). The experiences of therapists using a new client-centred psychometric instrument, “PSYCHLOPS” (“psychological outcome profile”). Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 5, 37–41. CrossRef

34.

Ashworth, M., Robinson, S. I., Godfrey, E., Shepherd, M., Evans, C., Seed, P., Parmentier, H., & Tylee, A. (2005). Measuring mental health outcomes in primary care: The psychometric properties of a new patient-generated outcome measure, ‘PSYCHLOPS’ (‘psychological outcome profiles’). Primary Care Mental Health, 3, 261–270.

35.

Day, A. (2004). The development of the MYMOP pictorial version. Acupuncture in Medicine, 22, 68–71. CrossRefPubMed

36.

Day, A., & Kingsbury-Smith, R. (2004). An audit of acupuncture in general practice. Acupuncture in Medicine, 22, 87–92. CrossRefPubMed

37.

Evans, C., Ashworth, M., & Peters, M. (2010). Are problems prevalent and stable in non-clinical populations? problems and test-retest stability of a patient-generated measure, PSYCHLOPS (psychological outcome profiles), in a non-clinical student sample. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 38, 431–439. CrossRef

38.

Cooke, H. J. (2000). Is the adapted “measure yourself medical outcome profile questionnaire an appropriate tool to evaluate the bristol cancer help centre’s supportive programme? Dissertation. University of Exeter

39.

Paterson, C., & Britten, N. (2000). In pursuit of patient-centred outcomes: A qualitative evaluation of the ‘measure yourself medical outcome profile’. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 5, 27–36. CrossRefPubMed

40.

Paterson, C. (2004). Seeking the patient’s perspective: A qualitative assessment of EuroQol, COOP-WONCA charts and MYMOP. Quality of Life Research, 13, 871–881. CrossRefPubMed

41.

Paterson, C., Langan, C. E., McKaig, G. A., Anderson, P. M., Maclaine, G. D. H., Rose, L. B., Walker, S. J., & Campbell, M. J. (2000). Assessing patient outcomes in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: The measure your medical outcome profile (MYMOP), medical outcomes study 6-item general health survey (MOS-6A) and EuroQol (EQ-5D). Quality of Life Research, 9, 521–527. CrossRefPubMed

42.

Paterson, C., Thomas, K., Manasse, A., Cooke, H., & Peace, G. (2007). Measure yourself concerns and wellbeing (MYCaW): An individualised questionnaire for evaluating outcome in cancer support care that includes complementary therapies. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 15, 38–45. CrossRefPubMed

43.

Polley, M. J., Seers, H. E., Cooke, H. J., Hoffman, C., & Paterson, C. (2007). How to summarise and report written qualitative data from patients: A method for use in cancer support care. Supportive Care Cancer, 15, 963–971. CrossRef

44.

MYMOP – welcome. Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk/mymop/index.php?c=welcome .

45.

Peace, G., & Manasse, A. (2002). The cavendish centre for integrated cancer care: Assessment of patients’ needs and responses. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 10, 33–41. CrossRefPubMed

46.

MYMOP—Sister. (2011). Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk/mymop/index.php?c=sister&s=mycaw .

47.

Jolliffe, R., Seers, H., Jackson, S., Caro, E., Weeks, L., & Polley, M. J. (2015). The responsiveness, content validity, and convergent validity of the measure yourself concerns and wellbeing (MYCaW) patient-reported outcome measure. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 14, 26–34. CrossRefPubMed

48.

Seers, H. E., Gale, N., Paterson, C., Cooke, H. J., Tuffrey, V., & Polley, M. J. (2009). Individualised and complex experiences of integrative cancer support care: Combining qualitative and quantitative data. Supportive Care Cancer, 17, 1159–1167. CrossRef

49.

Psychlops|Home. (2011). Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://www.psychlops.org.uk/.

50.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 539–549. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Bouter, L. M., & De Vet, H. C. W. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21, 651–657. CrossRefPubMed

52.

Lohr, K.N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205. CrossRefPubMed

53.

Valderas, J. M.. Ferrer, M.. Mendivil, J.. Garin, O.. Rajmil, L., Herdman, M.. Alonso, J., Scientific Committee on “Patient-Reported Outcomes” of the IRYSS Network. (2008). Development of EMPRO: a tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 11(4), 700–708. CrossRefPubMed

54.

Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., et al. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, 5928. CrossRef

55.

Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., & Egger, M. (1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA, 282(11), 1054–1060. CrossRefPubMed

56.

Greenland, S., & O’Rourke, K. (2001). On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics, 2(4), 463–471. CrossRefPubMed

57.

Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J., Gavaghan, D. J., et al. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17(1), 1–12. CrossRef

58.

Buscemi, N., Hartling, L., Vandermeer, B., Tjosvold, L., & Klassen, T. P. (2006). Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(7), 697–703. CrossRefPubMed

59.

Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 714–724. CrossRefPubMed

60.

de Wit, M., Delemarre-van de Waal, H. A., Bokma, J. A., Haasnoot, K., Houdijk, M. C., Gemke, R. J., & Snoek, F. J. (2008). Monitoring and discussing health-related quality of life in adolescents with type 1 diabetes improve psychosocial well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care, 31, 1521–1526. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Brewin, T., & Garrow, J. (1995). Commissioning complementary medicine. Evaluations of efficacy of treatments should be consistent. BMJ, 311, 809. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

62.

Fisher, P., & Eden, A. (1995). Commissioning complementary medicine. Homoeopathic hospitals have unique skill. BMJ, 311, 809. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

63.

PROMIS. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from http://www.nihpromis.org/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1.

64.

National Health Services. Retrieved September 4, 2017 http://www.nhs.uk/Search/Pages/Results.aspx?___JSSniffer=true&q=patient+reported+outcomes.

65.

Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research – CIHR. Retrieved September 4, 2017, from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html.

66.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Retrieved September 4, 2017, from https://www.pcori.org/.

67.

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Retrieved September 4, 2017, from https://www.ispor.org/about-ispor.asp.

Titel: Individualized health-related quality of life instrument Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) and its adaptations: a critical appraisal
Auteurs:: Sana Ishaque
Jeffrey A. Johnson
Sunita Vohra
Publicatiedatum: 13-11-2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2046-6
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Tijdschrift: Quality of Life Research An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation - An Official Journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research
Uitgave 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Podotherapeut Totaal

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2019

Assessing test–retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula

Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale by gender, age, marital status and educational level

Assessing the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and life satisfaction, psychological well-being, and social well-being: United States Longitudinal Cohort 1995–2014

Defining the cut-off point of clinically significant postoperative fatigue in three common fatigue scales

SF-36 normative values according to level of functioning in older women

Trials with proxy-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR)