Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 10/2021

25-05-2021

Evaluating the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for people with multimorbidity: a Delphi consensus

Auteurs: Maxime Sasseville, Maud-Christine Chouinard, Martin Fortin

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2021

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • 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
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Evidence supporting multimorbidity-adapted interventions is scarce, mostly due to a lack of adapted outcome measures. Measurement constructs for a novel patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) were defined in previous studies using a literature review, a qualitative description from stakeholders, and an item pool identification process. The aim of this study was to attain consensus on the content of this novel PROM.

Methods

A three-round electronic modified Delphi technique was conducted using an academic and clinical expert panel. Using a Likert scale, the panel rated the relevance, improvability, and self-ratability of each construct and item of the preliminary version of the PROM. The main outcome was consensus attainment, defined as strong (≥ 70%), moderate (50–69%) or low agreement (< 50%). Constructs and items with strong consensus were kept, moderate were sent to the next round and low agreement were rejected.

Results

From the 61 experts contacted, 39 participated in the first round of the Delphi, with a 12.8% attrition at the second round (n = 34) and 38.2% at the third round (n = 21). The panel included mostly female academic experts from nursing and medicine backgrounds. The preliminary PROM included 19 constructs and 70 items; from these, 16 constructs and 50 items attained consensus. The consensus attainment process excluded three constructs and their items: awareness, weight control and social integration.

Conclusion

Consensus was reached for a patient-reported outcome measure adapted for people with multimorbidity including 50 relevant, improvable and self-ratable items categorized under 16 constructs. As more interventions tailored to multimorbidity are implemented, there is an increasing need for a valid measure of the effectiveness of these interventions.
vorige artikel Support for the higher-order factor structure of the WHODAS 2.0 self-report version in a Dutch outpatient psychiatric setting
volgende artikel Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L and the reworded QOLIBRI-OS in the general population of Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
2.
3.
4.
Barnett, K., Mercer, S. W., Norbury, M., Watt, G., Wyke, S., & Guthrie, B. (2012). Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: A cross-sectional study. The Lancet, 380(9836), 37–43.CrossRef
5.
Wang, L., Si, L., Cocker, F., Palmer, A. J., & Sanderson, K. (2018). A systematic review of cost-of-illness studies of multimorbidity. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 16(1), 15–29.CrossRef
6.
7.
Read, J., Read, L. S., Modini, M., & Dear, B. F. (2017). Multimorbidity and depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 221, 36–46.CrossRef
8.
Guthrie, B., McCowan, C., Davey, P., Simpson, C. R., Dreischulte, T., & Barnett, K. (2011). High risk prescribing in primary care patients particularly vulnerable to adverse drug events: cross sectional population database analysis in Scottish general practice. British Medical Journal, 342, d3514.CrossRef
9.
Lorig, K., Sobel, D. S., Ritter, P. L., Laurent, D., & Hobbs, M. (2001). Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Effective Clinical Practice, 4(6), 256–262.PubMed
10.
Bayliss, E. A., Edwards, A. E., Steiner, J. F., & Main, D. S. (2008). Processes of care desired by elderly patients with multimorbidities. Family Practice, 25(4), 287–293.CrossRef
11.
Bratzke, L. C., Muehrer, R. J., Kehl, K. A., Lee, K. S., Ward, E. C., & Kwekkeboom, K. L. (2014). Self-management priority setting and decision-making in adults with multimorbidity: A narrative review of literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(3), 744–755.CrossRef
12.
Sasseville, M., Chouinard, M. C., & Fortin, M. (2018). Patient-reported outcomes in multimorbidity intervention research: A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 77, 145–153.CrossRef
13.
Cappelleri, J. C., Zou, K. H., Bushmakin, A. G., Alvir, J. M. J., Alemayehu, D., & Symonds, T. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes: Measurement, implementation and interpretation (p. 351). Crc Press.CrossRef
14.
Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., Schwartz, C., Revicki, D. A., Moinpour, C. M., McLeod, L. D., Lyons, J. C., Lenderking, W. R., Hinds, P. S., Hays, R. D., Greenhalgh, J., Gershon, R., Feeny, D., Fayers, P. M., Cella, D.,… Butt, Z. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905.CrossRef
15.
Sasseville, M., Chouinard, M. C., & Fortin, M. (2021). Understanding patient outcomes to develop a multimorbidity adapted patient-reported outcomes measure: A qualitative description of patient and provider perspectives. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 19(1), 1–8.CrossRef
16.
DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45(5), S12–S21.CrossRef
17.
Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1115–1123.CrossRef
18.
Pesudovs, K., Burr, J. M., Harley, C., & Elliott, D. B. (2007). The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optometry and Vision Science, 84(8), 663–674.CrossRef
19.
Keeney, S., McKenna, H., & Hasson, F. (2011). The Delphi technique in nursing and health research (p. 198). John Wiley.CrossRef
20.
Jünger, S., et al. (2017). Guidance on conducting and REporting DElphi studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliative Medicine, 31(8), 684–706.CrossRef
21.
22.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). . Wiley.
23.
Murphy, M., Hollinghurst, S., & Salisbury, C. (2017). Agreeing the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for primary care: A Delphi consensus study. Health Expectations, 20(2), 335–348.CrossRef
24.
Johnston, M. C., Crilly, M., Black, C., Prescott, G. J., & Mercer, S. W. (2018). Defining and measuring multimorbidity: A systematic review of systematic reviews. European Journal of Public Health, 29(1), 182–189.CrossRef
25.
Lefèvre, T., d’Ivernois, J.-F., De Andrade, V., Crozet, C., Lombrail, P., & Gagnayre, R. (2014). What do we mean by multimorbidity? An analysis of the literature on multimorbidity measures, associated factors, and impact on health services organization. Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique, 62(5), 305–314.CrossRef
26.
Marengoni, A., Angleman, S., Melis, R., Mangialasche, F., Karp, A., Garmen, A., Meinow, B., & Fratiglioni, L. (2011). Aging with multimorbidity: A systematic review of the literature. Ageing Research Reviews, 10(4), 430–439.CrossRef
27.
Smith, S. M., Wallace, E., Salisbury, C., Sasseville, M., Bayliss, E., & Fortin, M. (2018). A core outcome set for multimorbidity research (COSmm). The Annals of Family Medicine, 16(2), 132–138.CrossRef
28.
Sinha, I. P., Smyth, R. L., & Williamson, P. (2011). Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: Recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Medicine, 8(1), e1000393.CrossRef
29.
Humphrey-Murto, S., Varpio, L., Gonsalves, C., & Wood, T. J. (2017). Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and nominal group in medical education research. Medical Teacher, 39(1), 14–19.CrossRef
30.
Salisbury, C., Man, M., Bower, P., Guthrie, B., Chaplin, K., Gaunt, D. M., Brookes, S., Fitzpatrick, B., Gardner, C., Hollinghurst, S., Lee, V., McLeod, J., Mann, C., Moffat, K. R., & Mercer, S. W. (2018). Management of multimorbidity using a patient-centred care model: A pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of the 3D approach. The Lancet, 392(10141), 41–50.CrossRef
31.
Boult, C., Leff, B., Boyd, C. M., Wolff, J. L., Marsteller, J. A., Frick, K. D., Wegener, S., Reider, L., Frey, K., Mroz, T. M., Karm, L., & Scharfstein, D. O. (2013). A matched-pair cluster-randomized trial of guided care for high-risk older patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(5), 612–621.CrossRef
32.
Paterson, C. (1996). Measuring outcomes in primary care: A patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey. BMJ, 312(7037), 1016–1020.CrossRef
33.
Howie, J. G., Heaney, D. J., Maxwell, M., & Walker, J. J. (1998). A comparison of a patient enablement instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Family Practice, 15(2), 165–171.CrossRef
34.
Mercer, S. W., Smith, S. M., Wyke, S., O’Dowd, T., & Watt, G. C. (2009). Multimorbidity in primary care: Developing the research agenda. Family Practice, 26(2), 79–80.CrossRef
35.
Nolte, S., Elsworth, G. R., Newman, S., & Osborne, R. H. (2013). Measurement issues in the evaluation of chronic disease self-management programs. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1655–1664.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Evaluating the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for people with multimorbidity: a Delphi consensus
Auteurs
Maxime Sasseville
Maud-Christine Chouinard
Martin Fortin
Publicatiedatum
25-05-2021
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02888-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2021

Quality of Life Research 10/2021 Naar de uitgave

Commentary

Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders

OriginalPaper

An item analysis according to the Rasch model of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)

Correction

Correction to: Health-related quality of life in adults with tetralogy of Fallot repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OriginalPaper

Could the EQ-5D-3L predict all-cause mortality in older Chinese? Evidence from a 5-year longitudinal study in eastern China

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life in elderly, multimorbid individuals with and without depression and/or mild cognitive impairment using a telemonitoring application

OriginalPaper

Mapping the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer to the SF-6D