Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): A systematic review

Contains fulltext : 164118.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) validated in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). We performed a systematic literature search of all PROMs validated in patients with OSA, and found 22 measures meeting our inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies was assessed using the consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The results showed that most of the measurement properties of the PROMs were not, or not adequately, assessed. For many identified PROMs there was no involvement of patients with OSA during their development or before the PROM was tested in patients with OSA. Positive exceptions and the best current candidates for assessing health status in patients with OSA are the sleep apnea quality of life index (SAQLI), Maugeri obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (MOSAS) questionnaire, Quebec sleep questionnaire (QSQ) and the obstructive sleep apnea patient-oriented severity index (OSAPOSI). Even though there is not enough evidence to fully judge the quality of these PROMs as outcome measure, when interpreted with caution, they have the potential to add value to clinical research and clinical practice in evaluating aspects of health status that are important to patients

Inter-method reliability of the modified Rankin Scale in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage

Background and objectives The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is one of the most frequently used outcome measures in trials in patients with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). The assessment method of the mRS is often not clearly described in trials, while the method used might influence the mRS score. The aim of this study is to evaluate the inter-method reliability of different assessment methods of the mRS.Methods This is a prospective, randomized, multicenter study with follow-up at 6 weeks and 6 months. Patients aged >= 18 years with aSAH were randomized to either a structured interview or a self-assessment of the mRS. Patients were seen by a physician who assigned an mRS score, followed by either the structured interview or the self-assessment. Inter-method reliability was assessed with the quadratic weighted kappa score and percentage of agreement. Assessment of feasibility of the self-assessment was done by a feasibility questionnaire.Results The quadratic weighted kappa was 0.60 between the assessment of the physician and structured interview and 0.56 between assessment of the physician and self-assessment. Percentage agreement was, respectively, 50.8 and 19.6%. The assessment of the mRS through a structured interview and by self-assessment resulted in systematically higher mRS scores than the mRS scored by the physician. Self-assessment of the mRS was proven feasible.Discussion The mRS scores obtained with different assessment methods differ significantly. The agreement between the scores is low, although the reliability between the assessment methods is good. This should be considered when using the mRS in clinical trials.Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice for patients with obstructive sleep apnea

Contains fulltext : 203855.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)Radboud University, 25 juni 2019Promotores : Wees, P.J. van der, Rovers, M.M., Westert, G.P.185 p

Perceptions and experiences of financial incentives: a qualitative study of dialysis care in England

Contains fulltext : 136496.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to understand the extent to which financial incentives such as Payment by Results and other payment mechanisms motivate kidney centres in England to change their practices. DESIGN: The study followed a qualitative design. Data collection involved 32 in-depth semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals and managers, focusing on their subjective experience of payment structures. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were kidney healthcare professionals, clinical directors, kidney centre managers and finance managers. Healthcare commissioners from different parts of England were also interviewed. SETTING: Participants worked at five kidney centres from across England. The selection was based on the prevalence of home haemodialysis, ranging from low (8%) prevalence, with at least one centre in each one of these categories at the time of selection. RESULTS: While the tariff for home haemodialysis is not a clear incentive for its adoption due to uncertainty about operational costs, Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) targets and the Best Practice Tariff for vascular access were seen by our case study centres as a motivator to change practices. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of financial incentives designed at a policy level is influenced by the understanding of cost and benefits at the local operational level. In a situation where costs are unclear, incentives which are based on the improvement of profit margins have a smaller impact than incentives which provide an additional direct payment, even if this extra financial support is relatively small

[Using pandemic guidelines in simulated triage sessions. Preliminary observations and lessons learned]

In Spring 2020, the Netherlands appeared to be poorly prepared for 'code black': a situation in which Intensive Care Unit (ICU) bed shortage would be a reality. Guidelines were developed with medical and non-medical considerations for ICU triage. In recent months, we organized eight simulated triage sessions in four hospitals, as part of a research project. We asked triage teams to prioritize cases of patients in need of ICU care, aided by the guidelines. Data are still being analyzed; here we share some preliminary observations and lessons learned. In our sessions, it was striking how much triage depends on the input of the intensivist, especially when it comes to crucial expertise regarding prognosis and length of stay. Differences in prioritization predominantly depended on different estimations of prognosis and length of stay. The guidelines provide direction, but prioritizing ICU patients can be mentally burdensome for triagists. This requires support and aftercare for triage teams

Appraising convergent validity of patient-reported outcome measures in systematic reviews: constructing hypotheses and interpreting outcomes

PURPOSE: Convergent validity is one type of validity that is commonly assessed for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). It is assessed by means of "hypothesis testing": determining whether the scores of the instrument under study correlate with other instruments in the way that one would expect. Authors of systematic reviews on measurement properties for PROMs may encounter validation articles which do not state hypotheses by which convergent validity can be tested. The information in these articles can therefore not be readily used to determine the adequacy of convergent validity. We suggest that in these cases, reviewers construct their own hypotheses. However, constructing hypotheses and interpreting outcomes is not always straightforward, and we wish to aid reviewers based on our own recent experiences with a systematic review on measurement properties. RECOMMENDATIONS: We have the following recommendations for authors of a systematic review on measurement properties who wish to construct hypotheses for convergent validity: take an active role in judging the suitability of the comparator instruments of validation articles; be transparent about which hypotheses were constructed, the underlying assumptions on which they are based, and whether they were constructed by the authors of the validation article or by the reviewer; discuss unmet hypotheses, especially if convergent validity is judged to be inadequate; and when synthesizing data, add up the results of all hypotheses for one instrument, rather than judging convergent validity per study

Measurement properties of the Dutch-Flemish patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) physical function item bank and instruments: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Limitations in physical functioning are a big concern especially for patients with chronic or musculoskeletal diseases. Therefore, physical functioning is often used as a core outcome of treatments. The generic patient-reported outcomes information system (PROMIS) physical function (PF) item bank has shown potential to measure PF with better precision, interpretability and lower respondent burden compared with traditional patient-reported outcome measures. This study provides an overview of the current evidence on the quality of the measurement properties of the translated Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF item bank and its subdomains, and their derived short forms and computer adaptive tests (CATs). METHODS: PubMed was searched up to June 17th 2020 for validation studies of Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF in Dutch and Flemish adults. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the COSMIN Risk of bias checklist. The COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties were used to judge the results of the studies, which were adjusted and added to where needed for this review, in the context of IRT instruments and item banks. The quality of evidence was summarized for each measurement property based on the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included, evaluating the PROMIS-PF item bank, the Upper Extremity (UE) subdomain, and/or their derived short forms and CATs in different clinical populations. There is evidence for sufficient structural validity, measurement precision, construct validity, and cross-cultural validity of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF item bank. The upper extremity subdomain item bank shows high quality evidence for structural validity and measurement precision. Content validity of these item banks has not been thoroughly demonstrated in a Dutch-Flemish population. Furthermore, the derived instruments have far less robust evidence: there are fewer validation studies available and none examined their performance as stand-alone administered instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The first studies into the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF item bank and the UE subdomain show promising results, with especially high quality evidence for sufficient structural validity and measurement precision. However, more studies, and with higher methodological quality, are needed to study the instruments derived from these item banks. These studies should also evaluate content validity, reliability and responsiveness

Translation and validation of two disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (Bladder Cancer Index and FACT-Bl-Cys) in Dutch bladder cancer patients

Contains fulltext : 208390.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The Bladder Cancer Index (BCI) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bladder-Cystectomy (FACT-Bl-Cys) were developed to measure disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in bladder cancer patients and patients treated with radical cystectomy, respectively. Both patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used in clinical practice, but are not yet validated according to the COSMIN criteria and not yet available in Dutch. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate the BCI and FACT-Bl-Cys into Dutch and to evaluate their measurement properties according to the COSMIN criteria. METHODS: The BCI and FACT-Bl-Cys were translated into Dutch using a forward-backward method, and subsequently administered at baseline (pre-operatively) and 3 months post-operatively in bladder cancer patients who received a radical cystectomy. Validity (content and construct), reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error), floor and ceiling effects, and responsiveness were assessed according to the COSMIN criteria. RESULTS: Forward-backward translation encountered no particular linguistic problems. In total 260 patients completed the baseline measurement, while 182 patients completed the three-month measurement. Only a ceiling effect was identified for the BCI. Hypotheses testing for construct validity was satisfying, as 67% and 92% of the hypothesized correlations were confirmed. Structural validity was moderate for both measures, as confirmatory factor analyses showed limited fit. Reliability of both PROMs was good. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the BCI domains ranged from 0.47 to 0.93, minimal value of Cronbach's alpha was 0.70, smallest detectable change on group level (SDC group) ranged from 1.9 to 8.6. The ICC of the FACT-Bl-Cys domains ranged from 0.43 to 0.83, minimal value of Cronbach's alpha was 0.77, SDC group was around 1. Only the FACT-Bl-Cys total score was found to be responsive to changes in generic quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch versions of the BCI and FACT-Bl-Cys were shown to be reliable and have good content validity. Structural validity was limited for both measures. Only the FACT-Bl-Cys total score was responsive to changes in generic HRQOL. Despite some limitations, both PROMs seem suitable for use in clinical practice and research

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): A systematic review

This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) validated in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). We performed a systematic literature search of all PROMs validated in patients with OSA, and found 22 measures meeting our inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies was assessed using the consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The results showed that most of the measurement properties of the PROMs were not, or not adequately, assessed. For many identified PROMs there was no involvement of patients with OSA during their development or before the PROM was tested in patients with OSA. Positive exceptions and the best current candidates for assessing health status in patients with OSA are the sleep apnea quality of life index (SAQLI), Maugeri obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (MOSAS) questionnaire, Quebec sleep questionnaire (QSQ) and the obstructive sleep apnea patient-oriented severity index (OSAPOSI). Even though there is not enough evidence to fully judge the quality of these PROMs as outcome measure, when interpreted with caution, they have the potential to add value to clinical research and clinical practice in evaluating aspects of health status that are important to patients

Instrument completion and validation of the patient-reported apnea questionnaire (PRAQ)

Contains fulltext : 194446.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access