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

The GYMSSA trial: a prospective randomized trial comparing gastrectomy, metastasectomy plus systemic therapy versus systemic therapy alone

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The standard of care for metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) is systemic chemotherapy which leads to a median survival of 6-15 months. Survival beyond 3 years is rare. For selected groups of patients with limited MGC, retrospective studies have shown improved overall survival following gastrectomy and metastasectomies including peritoneal stripping with continuous hyperthermic peritoneal perfusion (CHPP), liver resection, and pulmonary resection. Median survival after liver resection for MGC is up to 34 months, with a five year survival rate of 24.5%. Similarly, reported median survival after pulmonary resection of MGC is 21 months with long term survival of greater than 5 years a possibility. Several case reports and small studies have documented evidence of long-term survival in select individuals who undergo CHPP for MGC.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>The GYMSSA trial is a prospective randomized trial for patients with MGC. It is designed to compare two therapeutic approaches: gastrectomy with metastasectomy plus systemic chemotherapy (GYMS) versus systemic chemotherapy alone (SA). Systemic therapy will be composed of the FOLFOXIRI regimen. The aim of the study is to evaluate overall survival and potential selection criteria to determine those patients who may benefit from surgery plus systemic therapy. The study will be conducted by the Surgery Branch at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. Surgeries and followup will be done at the NCI, and chemotherapy will be given by either the local oncologist or the medical oncology branch at NCI.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov ID. NCT00941655</p

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

A promising method for identifying cross-cultural differences in patient perspective: the use of Internet-based focus groups for content validation of new Patient Reported Outcome assessments

OBJECTIVES: This proof of concept (POC) study was designed to evaluate the use of an Internet-based bulletin board technology to aid parallel cross-cultural development of thematic content for a new set of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs). METHODS: The POC study, conducted in Germany and the United States, utilized Internet Focus Groups (IFGs) to assure the validity of new PRO items across the two cultures – all items were designed to assess the impact of excess facial oil on individuals' lives. The on-line IFG activities were modeled after traditional face-to-face focus groups and organized by a common 'Topic' Guide designed with input from thought leaders in dermatology and health outcomes research. The two sets of IFGs were professionally moderated in the native language of each country. IFG moderators coded the thematic content of transcripts, and a frequency analysis of code endorsement was used to identify areas of content similarity and difference between the two countries. Based on this information, draft PRO items were designed and a majority (80%) of the original participants returned to rate the relative importance of the newly designed questions. FINDINGS: The use of parallel cross-cultural content analysis of IFG transcripts permitted identification of the major content themes in each country as well as exploration of the possible reasons for any observed differences between the countries. Results from coded frequency counts and transcript reviews informed the design and wording of the test questions for the future PRO instrument(s). Subsequent ratings of item importance also deepened our understanding of potential areas of cross-cultural difference, differences that would be explored over the course of future validation studies involving these PROs. CONCLUSION: The use of IFGs for cross-cultural content development received positive reviews from participants and was found to be both cost and time effective. The novel thematic coding methodology provided an empirical platform on which to develop culturally sensitive questionnaire content using the natural language of participants. Overall, the IFG responses and thematic analyses provided a thorough evaluation of similarities and differences in cross-cultural themes, which in turn acted as a sound base for the development of new PRO questionnaires