Scoring methods, multiple criteria, and utility analysis

decision making;computers;information and uncertainty

Reimagining the General Health Questionnaire as a measure of emotional wellbeing: A study of postpartum women in Malta

Background: Postpartum health has been subject to a focus on psychological morbidity, despite positive associations between postpartum recovery and maternal emotional wellbeing. There are currently many validated tools to measure wellbeing and related concepts, including non-psychiatric morbidity. The General Health Questionnaire, 12 items (GHQ-12) is one such instrument, widely used and validated in several languages. Its use in postpartum settings has been documented with disagreement about the instrument's utility in this population, particularly in relation to scoring method and threshold. The GHQ-12 has never been translated into Maltese. This study explored the psychometric properties of the GHQ-12 in a Maltese postpartum population to consider if the use of a different scoring method (visual analogue scale) in the GHQ-12 can determine postpartum wellbeing. Methods: One hundred and twenty-four postpartum women recruited from one hospital in Malta completed the translated and adapted GHQ-12 as a wellbeing measure (GHQ-12(WB)) at four postpartum time points. The psychometric properties of the GHQ-12(WB) were explored using confirmatory factor analysis, discriminant and divergent validity and reliability analysis. Results: The GHQ-12(WB) demonstrated good divergent and known-groups validity and internal consistency. No models offered a good fit to the data. The overall consistent best-fit to the data was an eight item, two factor model (GHQ-8). Model fit improved across all models in terms of CFI at 13 weeks. Conclusion: Findings generally support the reliability and validity of the Maltese version of the GHQ-12(WB). Model fit changes over time reflect the dynamic nature of postpartum recovery. Further evaluation of the GHQ-8(WB) is recommended. © 2013 Australian College of Midwives

Patient-reported depression measures in cancer: a meta-review

The patient-reported depression measures that perform best in oncology settings have not yet been identified. We did a meta-review to integrate the findings of reviews of more than 50 depression measures used in adults with, or recovering from, any type of cancer. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and grey literature from 1999 to 2014 to identify 19 reviews representing 372 primary studies. 11 reviews were rated as being of high quality (defined as meeting at least 20 criteria in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement). The Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) was the most thoroughly evaluated measure, but was limited by cutpoint variability. The HADS had moderate screening utility indices and was least recommended in advanced cancer or palliative care. The Beck Depression Inventory was more generalisable across cancer types and disease stages, with good indices for screening and case finding. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale was the best-weighted measure in terms of responsiveness. This meta-review provides a comprehensive overview of the strengths and limitations of available depression measures. It can inform the choice of the best measure for specific settings and purposes

Assessment of sexual difficulties associated with multi-modal treatment for cervical or endometrial cancer: A systematic review of measurement instruments

Background: Practitioners and researchers require an outcome measure that accurately identifies the range of common treatment-induced changes in sexual function and well-being experienced by women after cervical or endometrial cancer. This systematic review critically appraised the measurement properties and clinical utility of instruments validated for the measurement of female sexual dysfunction (FSD) in this clinical population. Methods: A bibliographic database search for questionnaire development or validation papers was completed and methodological quality and measurement properties of selected studies rated using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) checklist. Results: 738 articles were screened, 13 articles retrieved for full text assessment and 7 studies excluded, resulting in evaluation of 6 papers; 2 QoL and 4 female sexual morbidity measures. Five of the six instruments omitted one or more dimension of female sexual function and only one instrument explicitly measured distress associated with sexual changes as per DSM V (APA 2013) diagnostic criteria. None of the papers reported measurement error, responsiveness data was available for only two instruments, three papers failed to report on criterion validity, and test-retest reliability reporting was inconsistent. Heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse remains the dominant sexual activity focus for sexual morbidity PROMS terminology and instruments lack explicit reference to solo or non-coital sexual expression or validation in a non-heterosexual sample. Four out of six instruments included mediating treatment or illness items such as vaginal changes, menopause or altered body image. Conclusions: Findings suggest that the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) remains the most robust sexual morbidity outcome measure, for research or clinical use, in sexually active women treated for cervical or endometrial cancer

Increasing discrimination in multi-criteria analysis

Multi criteria methods for supporting decision-making procedures are widely used in sustainability assessment. One of the most important steps in decision-making procedures is the evaluation of policy options or alternatives in order to find a hierarchy of option choices. Utility function value distributions are often constructed for the range of indicators for the options to be assessed. This distribution can be presented as an impact matrix stacked with indicator weights to reflect the relative importance of different indicators for the decision-maker. Solving rules are then introduced to integrate all individual indicator evaluations into a single integral utility estimation. These are often based on the averaging procedures, one of the simplest being arithmetic averaging. Whilst averaging rules are very attractive to decision makers due to their simplicity and logical transparency, using averaging as the first step of the decision-making procedures can significantly reduce the discrimination of the options, especially if there are counteractive individual indicator estimations.This paper proposes a method to evaluate and overcome this loss of discrimination. The paper explains the basis of a discriminatory analysis approach to sustainability assessment demonstrates its application through the use of illustrative data and describes its application to an existing case study where researchers had applied a number of multi criteria analysis tools. It was concluded that the discriminatory analysis provided a useful addition to the decision-makers toolbox as it provided a means of assessment of the validity of the application of the simple arithmetic averaging technique