Development and Validation of the FSIQ-RMS: A New Patient-Reported Questionnaire to Assess Symptoms and Impacts of Fatigue in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis

Objectives: A new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to measure fatigue symptoms and impacts in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) was developed in a qualitative stage, followed by psychometric validation and migration from paper to an electronic format. Methods: Adult patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) were interviewed to elicit fatigue-related symptoms and impacts. A draft questionnaire was debriefed in cognitive interviews with further RRMS patients, and revised. Content confirmation interviews were conducted with patients with progressive-relapsing multiple sclerosis (PRMS) and relapsing secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis (RSPMS). Psychometric analyses used data from adult patients with different RMS subtypes and matched non-RMS controls in a multicenter, observational study. After item reduction, the final instrument was migrated to a smartphone (eDiary) and usability was confirmed in interviews with additional adult RMS patients. Results: The qualitative stage included 37 RRMS, 5 PRMS, and 5 RSPMS patients. Saturation of concepts was reached during concept elicitation. Cognitive interviews confirmed that participants understood the instructions, items, and response options of the instrument—named FSIQ-RMS—as intended. Psychometric validation included 164 RMS and 74 control patients. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were demonstrated. The symptoms domain discriminated along the RMS symptom-severity continuum and between patients and controls. Patients were able to attribute fatigue-related symptoms to RMS. Usability and conceptual equivalence of the eDiary were confirmed (n = 10 participants). Conclusions: With 7 symptom items and 13 impact items (in 3 impacts subdomains: physical, cognitive and emotional, and coping) after item reduction, the FSIQ-RMS is a comprehensive, valid, and reliable measure of fatigue-related symptoms and impacts in RMS patients

Comparing the measurement equivalence of EQ-5D-5L across different modes of administration

Background: Interest in collecting Patient Reported Outcomes using electronic methods such as mobile phones has increased in recent years. However there is debate about the level of measurement equivalence between the traditional paper and newer electronic modes. Information about the acceptability of the electronic versions to respondents is also required. The aim of this study is to compare the equivalence of delivering a widely used generic measure of health status (EQ-5D-5L) across two administration modes (paper and mobile phone). Methods: Respondents from a research cohort of people in South Yorkshire were identified, and randomly allocated to one of two administration modes (paper vs. mobile phone) based on stratifications for age and gender (and across a range of self-reported health conditions). A parallel group design was used where each respondent only completed EQ-5D-5L using one of the modes. In total, 70 respondents completed the measure in the mobile phone arm, and 66 completed the standard paper version. Follow up usability questions were also included to assess the acceptability of the mobile version of EQ-5D-5L. Measurement equivalence was compared at the dimension, utility score and visual analogue scale level using chi square analysis and ANOVA, and by comparing mean differences to an estimated minimally important difference value. Results: Response rates were higher in the mobile arm. The mean EQ-5D-5L utility and VAS scores, and the frequency of respondents endorsing individual EQ-5D-5L dimension response levels did not significantly differ across the administration modes. The majority of the mobile arm agreed that the mobile version of EQ-5D-5L was easy to complete, and that the phone was easy to use, and that they would complete mobile health measures again. Conclusions: Completing health status measures such as EQ-5D using mobile phones produces equivalent results to more traditional methods, but with added benefits (for example lessening the burden of data entry). Respondents are positive towards completing questionnaires using these methods. The results provide evidence that electronic measures are valid for use to collect data in a range of settings including clinical trials, routine care, and in health diary settings

Benefits and consequences of using a single portuguese language version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G)

Vidal Daniel. Bronislaw Malinowski, Une théorie scientifique de la culture, 1968. In: Sociologie du travail, 10ᵉ année n°4, Octobre-décembre 1968. pp. 452-453

PRO Data Collection in Clinical Trials Using Mixed Modes: Report of the ISPOR PRO Mixed Modes Good Research Practices Task Force

AbstractThe objective of this report was to address the use and mixing of data collection modes within and between trials in which patient-reported outcome (PRO) end points are intended to be used to support medical product labeling. The report first addresses the factors that should be considered when selecting a mode or modes of PRO data collection in a clinical trial, which is often when mixing is first considered. Next, a summary of how to "faithfully" migrate instruments is presented followed by a section on qualitative and quantitative study designs used to evaluate measurement equivalence of the new and original modes of data collection. Finally, the report discusses a number of issues that must be taken into account when mixing modes is deemed necessary or unavoidable within or between trials, including considerations of the risk of mixing at different levels within a clinical trial program and mixing between different types of platforms. In the absence of documented evidence of measurement equivalence, it is strongly recommended that a quantitative equivalence study be conducted before mixing modes in a trial to ensure that sufficient equivalence can be demonstrated to have confidence in pooling PRO data collected by the different modes. However, we also strongly discourage the mixing of paper and electronic field-based instruments and suggest that mixing of electronic modes be considered for clinical trials and only after equivalence has been established. If proceeding with mixing modes, it is important to implement data collection carefully in the trial itself in a planned manner at the country level or higher and minimize ad hoc mixing by sites or individual subjects. Finally, when mixing occurs, it must be addressed in the statistical analysis plan for the trial and the ability to pool the data must be evaluated to then evaluate treatment effects with mixed modes data. A successful mixed modes trial requires a "faithful migration," measurement equivalence established between modes, and carefully planned implementation to minimize the risk of increased measurement error impacting the power of the trial to detect a treatment effect

Cross-cultural adaptation and construct validity of the German version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for service users (German ASCOT)

Background: There has been considerable interest in using the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT), developed in England, to measure quality-of-life outcomes of long-term care (LTC-QoL) service provision in national and cross-national studies. Objectives: The aim of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the original ASCOT service user measure into German and to evaluate its content and construct validity in Austrian home care service users. Methods: The translation and cultural adaptation process followed the ISPOR TCA guidelines. We used qualitative data from six cognitive debriefing interviews with Austrian recipients of home care services to assess linguistic and content validity. In addition, cross-sectional survey data (n = 633) were used to evaluate construct validity by testing hypothesized associations established in a previous study for the original English ASCOT service user instrument. Results: Cognitive debriefing interviews confirmed that the German adaptation of the ASCOT service user instrument was understood as intended, although two domains (‘Control over daily life’ and ‘Dignity’) and selected phrases of the response options were challenging to translate into German. All ASCOT domains were statistically significantly associated with related constructs and sensitive to service user sub-group differences. Conclusions: We found good evidence for a valid cross-cultural adaptation of the German version of ASCOT for service users. The analysis also supports the construct validity of the translated instrument and its use in evaluations of QoL-effects of LTC service provision in German-speaking countries. Further research on the reliability and feasibility in different care settings is encouraged

Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Background PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system. Methods Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0–4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed. Results 103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55–0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62–0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60–0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS = −0.04 [−0.16–0.22]; tablet vs paper = −0.02 [−0.11–0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [−0.07–0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/−0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported “no problems” responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper. Conclusions Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration. Trial registration NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT0215863