Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2007

Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies

Auteur: Chih-Hung Chang

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | bijlage 1/2007

Abstract

Successful integration of modern psychometrics and advanced informatics in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measurement and management can potentially maximize the value of health outcomes research and optimize the delivery of quality patient care. Unlike the traditional labor-intensive paper-and-pencil data collection method, item response theory-based computerized adaptive testing methodologies coupled with novel technologies provide an integrated environment to collect, analyze and present ready-to-use PRO data for informed and shared decision-making. This article describes the needs, challenges and solutions for accurate, efficient and cost-effective PRO data acquisition and dissemination means in order to provide critical and timely PRO information necessary to actively support and enhance routine patient care in busy clinical settings.

vorige artikel Development and evaluation of a computer adaptive test for ‘Anxiety’ (Anxiety-CAT)

volgende artikel Practical and philosophical issues surrounding a national item bank: if we build it will they come?

Patrick, D. L., & Chiang, Y. P. (2000). Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: conceptual and methodological challenges. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II14–II25.PubMed

McHorney, C. A. (1997). Generic health measurement: past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(8_Part_2), 743–750.PubMed

Donaldson, M. S. (2004). Taking stock of health-related quality-of-life measurement in oncology practice in the United States. Journal of National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 33, 155–167.CrossRef

White, E. B. (1998). Outcomes: essential information for clinical decision support: an interview with Ellen B. White. Interview by Melinda L. Orlando. Journal of Health Care Finance, 24(3), 71–81.PubMed

Ware, J. E. Jr. (2003). Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life: comments on an evolving field. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(4 Suppl 2), S43–S51.PubMedCrossRef

Emery, M. P., Perrier, L. L., & Acquadro, C. (2005). Patient-reported outcome and quality of life instruments database (PROQOLID): frequently asked questions. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 12.PubMedCrossRef

US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (2006) US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4(1), 79.

Bradley, C. (2006). Feedback on the FDA’s February 2006 draft guidance on patient reported outcome (PRO) measures from a developer of PRO measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 78.PubMedCrossRef

Willke, R. J., Burke, L. B., & Erickson, P. (2004). Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25(6), 535–552.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Higginson, I. J., & Carr, A. J. (2001). Measuring quality of life: using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ, 322(7297), 1297–1300.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Jacobsen, P. B., Davis, K., & Cella, D. (2002). Assessing quality of life in research and clinical practice. Oncology (Williston Park), 16(9 Suppl 10), 133–139.

12.

Morris, J., Perez, D., & McNoe, B. (1998). The use of quality of life data in clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 7(1), 85–91.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Taylor, K., MacDonald, K., & Depetrillo, A. D. (1997). A preliminary survey of oncologists’ perceptions of quality of life information. Psychooncology, 6(2), 107–113.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Davis, K., & Cella, D. (2002). Assessing quality of life in oncology clinical practice: a review of barriers and critical success factors. Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management, 9, 327–332.

15.

Ruta, D., Coutts, A., & Abdalla, M., et al. (1995). Feasibility of monitoring patient based health outcomes in a routine hospital setting. Quality of Health Care, 4(3), 161–165.CrossRef

16.

Deyo, R. A., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Medical Care, 27(3 Suppl), S254–S268.PubMedCrossRef

17.

McHorney , C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4(4), 293–307.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Rubenstein, L. V., McCoy, J. M., & Cope, D. W., et al. (1995). Improving patient quality of life with feedback to physicians about functional status. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 10(11), 607–614.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Nelson, E. C., Landgraf, J. M., Hays, R. D., Wasson, J. H., & Kirk, J. W. (1990). The functional status of patients. How can it be measured in physicians’ offices? Medical Care, 28(12), 1111–1126.PubMedCrossRef

20.

21.

Taylor, K. M., Macdonald, K. G., Bezjak, A., Ng P., & DePetrillo, A. D. (1996). Physicians’ perspective on quality of life: an exploratory study of oncologists. Quality of Life Research, 5(1), 5–14.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Bates , D. W., & Gawande, A. A. (2003). Improving safety with information technology. The New England Journal of Medicine 348(25), 19 June 2003, pp. 2526–2534.

23.

Koppel, R., Metlay, J. P., & Cohen, A., et al. (2005). Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. The Journal of American Medical Association, 293(10), 1197–1203.CrossRef

24.

Yancik, R., Edwards, B. K., & Yates, J. W. (1989). Assessing the quality of life of cancer patients: Practical issues in study implementation. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 7(4), 59–74.CrossRef

25.

Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H. J. (2000). Fundamentals of item response theory; 1991.

26.

Humana buys into Web-based surveys to ID high-risk members. Health Demand Dis Manag, 6(6), 89–92.

27.

Wyatt, J. C. (2000). When to use web-based surveys. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association, 7(4), 426–429.

28.

Naylor, M. R., Helzer, J. E., Naud, S., & Keefe, F. J. (2002). Automated telephone as an adjunct for the treatment of chronic pain: a pilot study. Journal of Pain, 3(6), 429–438.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Piette, J. D. (2000). Interactive voice response systems in the diagnosis and management of chronic disease. American Journal of Management Care, 6(7), 817–827.

30.

Ware, J. E. Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., & Gray, G., et al. (1993). The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579.PubMed

32.

Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., & Bergman, B., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376.CrossRef

33.

Eremenco, S. L., Cella, D., & Arnold, B. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation, cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation &the Health Professions, 28(2), 212–232.CrossRef

34.

Bowden, A., & Fox-Rushby, J. A. (2003). A systematic and critical review of the process of translation and adaptation of generic health-related quality of life measures in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South America. Society of Science Medicine, 57(7), 1289–1306.CrossRef

35.

Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. (2004). Instrument translation process: a methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 175–186.PubMedCrossRef

36.

HIPAA privacy rule and public health. Guidance from CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. MMWR Morb Mortal Weekly Report 52 Suppl, 1–17, 19–20, 2 May 2003.

37.

Lax, J. R. (2002). The modified HIPAA Privacy Rule. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Optometry, 73(10), 635–645.PubMed

38.

Nosowsky, R., & Giordano, T. J. (2006). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule: implications for clinical research. Annual Review of Medicine, 57, 575–590.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Green BF, et al. (1990).Computerized adaptive testing: A primer.

40.

Ware, J. E. Jr., Bjorner, J. B., & Kosinski, M. (2000). Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II73–II82.PubMed

41.

Ware, J. E. Jr., Kosinski, M., & Bjorner, J. B., et al. (2003). Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 935–952.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Payne, T. H. (2000). Computer decision support systems. Chest. 118(2 Suppl), 47S–52S.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Cella , D. (2006). The FDA, the person with cancer: give PROs a chance. Oncology (Williston Park), 20(4), 436.

44.

Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., & Cella, D. (2005). The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clinical Experimental Rheumatology, 23(5 Suppl 39), S53–57.

45.

Reeve, B. B. (2006). Special issues for building computerized-adaptive tests for measuring patient-reported outcomes: The National Institute of Health’s Investment in New Technology. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S198–S204.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies
Auteur: Chih-Hung Chang
Publicatiedatum: 01-08-2007
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave bijlage 1/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9196-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen bijlage 1/2007

The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment

Developing tailored instruments: item banking and computerized adaptive assessment

Next steps for use of item response theory in the assessment of health outcomes

A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression

Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement

Methodological issues for building item banks and computerized adaptive scales