Quality and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess fatigue in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA): a systematic review (protocol)

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is estimated between 0.15 and 1.2%, with many of those patients experiencing severe fatigue. Current axSpA assessment guidance recommends use of a single-item visual analogue scale for fatigue severity. However, concerns have been raised about the ability of such a limited assessment to identify patients with major fatigue, to detect important change in fatigue or to reflect the multi-dimensional nature of fatigue. The proposed systematic review will identify and evaluate the quality and acceptability of single- and multi-item patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess fatigue in axSpA, seeking to make recommendations for the ‘best’ measures for research and/or clinical practice. METHODS/DESIGN: The review will seek to include published studies which report evidence of the development and/or measurement and/or practical properties of clearly defined and reproducible measures of fatigue following completion by patients with axSpA. Five major databases will be searched from 1980 to August 2017: MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), World of Science and CINAHL. Study methodological quality will be assessed against the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The measurement and/or practical properties of reviewed measures will be assessed against current international standards. A short list of the ‘best’-quality PROMs will be produced. The review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. DISCUSSION: This study will provide the first robust and transparent evaluation of patient-reported measures of fatigue used in the axSpA population, synthesising evidence of quality, relevance and acceptability. The review will benefit patients, clinicians, health professionals and researchers wishing to enhance axSpA-fatigue assessment in routine practice, service evaluation and research. The findings will impact future research which seeks to better understand the nature of axSpA fatigue and evaluate the relative benefit of fatigue-management strategies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016042271 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0777-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Co-Occurrence and Characteristics of Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis Who Meet Criteria for Fibromyalgia Results From a UK National Register

Objective. To estimate the proportion of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) in a UK national biologics registry who met criteria for fibromyalgia (FM), and to delineate the characteristics of these patients. Methods. Two cohorts of patients are prospectively recruited from across 83 centers in the UK for the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS). All patients are required to meet Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria for axial SpA. Patients are either newly starting biologic therapy (biologics cohort) or are naive to treatment with biologic agents (non-biologics cohort) at the time of recruitment, and all patients are followed up prospectively. At recruitment and follow-up, clinical information and measurements are recorded while patients complete the 2011 research criteria for FM and assessments of the level of disease activity and work impact. Results. Of the patients registered in the BSRBR-AS, 1,504 (68% male) were eligible for the current analysis, of whom 311 (20.7%) met the 2011 research criteria for FM. Prevalence of FM was similar between patients who fulfilled the modified New York criteria for AS (19.7%) and those who fulfilled ASAS imaging criteria but not the modified New York criteria (25.2%); however, among those who fulfilled only the ASAS clinical criteria, the prevalence of FM was lower (9.5%). Patients who met FM criteria reported significantly worse disease activity, function, global severity scores, and quality of life, and were more likely to have moderate or severe levels of mood disorder and clinically important fatigue. Patients who met FM criteria reported experiencing work impairment around half their working time. Meeting FM criteria was not related to elevated C-reactive protein levels or most extraspinal manifestations, but was associated with a higher likelihood of having received biologic therapy. Conclusion. Developing management approaches that would address the significant unmet clinical needs of the 1 in 5 patients with axial SpA who meet criteria for FM should be a research priority

Assessing the impact of headaches and the outcomes of treatment: A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Aims To critically appraise, compare and synthesise the quality and acceptability of multi-item patient reported outcome measures for adults with chronic or episodic headache. Methods Systematic literature searches of major databases (1980-2016) to identify published evidence of PROM measurement and practical properties. Data on study quality (COSMIN), measurement and practical properties per measure were extracted and assessed against accepted standards to inform an evidence synthesis. Results From 10,903 reviewed abstracts, 103 articles were assessed in full; 46 provided evidence for 23 PROMs: Eleven specific to the health-related impact of migraine (n = 5) or headache (n = 6); six assessed migraine-specific treatment response/satisfaction; six were generic measures. Evidence for measurement validity and score interpretation was strongest for two measures of impact, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ v2.1) and Headache Impact Test 6-item (HIT-6), and one of treatment response, the Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire (PPMQ-R). Evidence of reliability was limited, but acceptable for the HIT-6. Responsiveness was rarely evaluated. Evidence for the remaining measures was limited. Patient involvement was limited and poorly reported. Conclusion While evidence is limited, three measures have acceptable evidence of reliability and validity: HIT-6, MSQ v2.1 and PPMQ-R. Only the HIT-6 has acceptable evidence supporting its completion by all "headache" populations

Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic headache: A comparative evaluation of the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality and acceptability of a new headache-specific patient-reported measure, the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHQLQ) with the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), in people meeting an epidemiological definition of chronic headaches. METHODS: Participants in the feasibility stage of the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) (n = 130) completed measures three times during a 12-week prospective cohort study. Data quality, measurement acceptability, reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and score interpretation were determined. Semi-structured cognitive interviews explored measurement relevance, acceptability, clarity, and comprehensiveness. RESULTS: Both measures were well completed with few missing items. The CHQLQ's inclusion of emotional wellbeing items increased its relevance to participant's experience of chronic headache. End effects were present at item level only for both measures. Structural assessment supported the three and one-factor solutions of the CHQLQ and HIT-6, respectively. Both the CHQLQ (range 0.87 to 0.94) and HIT-6 (0.90) were internally consistent, with acceptable temporal stability over 2 weeks (CHQLQ range 0.74 to 0.80; HIT-6 0.86). Both measures responded to change in headache-specific health at 12 weeks (CHQLQ smallest detectable change (improvement) range 3 to 5; HIT-6 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: While both measures are structurally valid, internally consistent, temporally stable, and responsive to change, the CHQLQ has greater relevance to the patient experience of chronic headache.Trial registration number: ISRCTN79708100. Registered 16th December 2015, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79708100

Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic headache:a comparative evaluation of the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6)

Objective: To compare the quality and acceptability of a new headache-specific patient-reported measure the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHQLQ), with the Headache Impact Test–6 item (HIT-6), in people meeting an epidemiological definition of chronic headaches.Methods: Participants in the feasibility stage of the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) (N=130) completed measures three times during a 12-week prospective cohort study. Data quality, measurement acceptability, reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and score interpretation were determined. Semi-structured cognitive interviews explored measurement relevance, acceptability, clarity, and comprehensiveness.Results: Both measures were well completed with few missing items. The CHQLQ’s inclusion of emotional wellbeing items increased its relevance to participant’s experience of chronic headache. End effects were present at item level only for both measures. Structural assessment supported the three and one-factor solutions of the CHQLQ and HIT-6, respectively. Both the CHQLQ (range 0.87 to 0.94) and HIT-6 (0.90) were internally consistent, with acceptable temporal stability over 2-weeks (CHQLQ range 0.74 to 0.80; HIT-6 0.86). Both measures responded to change in headache-specific health at 12-weeks (CHQLQ smallest detectable change (improvement) range 3 to 5; HIT-6 2.1). Conclusions: While both measures are structurally valid, internally consistent, temporally stable and responsive to change, the CHQLQ has greater relevance to the patient experience of chronic headache. <br/

Recommendations for exercise adherence measures in musculoskeletal settings : a systematic review and consensus meeting (protocol)

Background: Exercise programmes are frequently advocated for the management of musculoskeletal disorders; however, adherence is an important pre-requisite for their success. The assessment of exercise adherence requires the use of relevant and appropriate measures, but guidance for appropriate assessment does not exist. This research will identify and evaluate the quality and acceptability of all measures used to assess exercise adherence within a musculoskeletal setting, seeking to reach consensus for the most relevant and appropriate measures for application in research and/or clinical practice settings. Methods/design: There are two key stages to the proposed research. First, a systematic review of the quality and acceptability of measures used to assess exercise adherence in musculoskeletal disorders; second, a consensus meeting. The systematic review will be conducted in two phases and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure a robust methodology. Phase one will identify all measures that have been used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal setting. Phase two will seek to identify published and unpublished evidence of the measurement and practical properties of identified measures. Study quality will be assessed against the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. A shortlist of best quality measures will be produced for consideration during stage two: a meeting of relevant stakeholders in the United Kingdom during which consensus on the most relevant and appropriate measures of exercise adherence for application in research and/or clinical practice settings will be sought. Discussion: This study will benefit clinicians who seek to evaluate patients’ levels of exercise adherence and those intending to undertake research, service evaluation, or audit relating to exercise adherence in the musculoskeletal field. The findings will impact upon new research studies which aim to understand the factors that predict adherence with exercise and which test different adherence-enhancing interventions. PROSPERO reference: CRD4201300621

Working with patients and members of the public: informing health economics in child health research

This paper considers patient and public involvement (PPI) in health economics research and how this might be facilitated. PPI refers to research carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public and is now an important aspect of health research policies internationally. Patients and members of the public can be involved in all stages of the research cycle, from establishing whether the topic is important to influencing details of study design, wording of patient-facing documentation and interpretation and dissemination of findings. PPI has become commonplace in health services research. In the context of clinical trials, it has become imperative, with, for example, patients and members of the public informing the selection of outcome measures and recruitment methods, and qualitative research is frequently steered by PPI input regarding the content of interview topic guides and the interpretation of study findings. It is less common for PPI to be explicitly reported in the economic components of health services research. However, we argue that involvement is no less important in this area. The fundamental rationale for involving people in research is that it promotes democratic principles, research quality and relevance to service users. These arguments equally apply to health economics as to other health research disciplines. Our overarching aim in this paper is to show how health economic research might be informed by PPI. We report our experiences of PPI via case studies in child health, reflect on our learnings, and make suggestions for future research practice

Cervical HPV infection and neoplasia in a large population-based prospective study: the Manchester cohort

Cytology and histology records and cervical samples for HPV assay were obtained from a prospective cohort of 49 655 women attending clinics for routine cervical cytology in or near Manchester between 1988 and 1993. The women were followed up for cytological abnormality and neoplasia through the cytology laboratory's records. HPV at entry was assayed in an age- and period-stratified random sample of 7278 women and in prevalent and incident CIN3 cases. The prevalence of newly diagnosed CIN3 increased with time since last normal smear, indicating that most cases persist for several years. CIN3 prevalence did not increase further for screening intervals exceeding 5 years, however, suggesting that CIN3 eventually regresses cytologically. CIN2 prevalence increased less steeply with screening interval, while the prevalence of lesser abnormality was almost independent of screening interval. The prevalence of oncogenic HPV at entry declined from 19% among women aged under 25 to less than 3% at age 40 or above. Oncogenic HPV infection was strongly predictive of subsequent CIN3 (OR 17.2, 95% CI 10.4-28.4), but only weakly related to CIN2 (OR 2.3, 95% CI 0.5-10.7) and lesser abnormality (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8-2.5). At current incidence rates, the lifetime risk of developing CIN3 will be 9% in this population. The cumulative risk of CIN3 diagnosis among cytologically normal women with oncogenic HPV detected at entry was 28% (CI 18-43%) after 14 years. Persistence of oncogenic HPV may be more sensitive and specific than cytology for early detection of CIN3 and invasive cancer

Responsiveness of SF-36 Health Survey and Patient Generated Index in people with chronic knee pain commenced on oral analgesia: analysis of data from a randomised controlled clinical trial

Purpose. (1) to assess the responsiveness of the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and Patient Generated Index (PGI) in people with knee pain who were given oral analgesics; and (2) to perform content analysis of the SF-36 and PGI aiming to identify differences between the instruments and causes of different responsiveness. Methods. An observational study nested within a randomised controlled trial comparing oral paracetamol, ibuprofen or a combination of the two in 884 community-derived people with chronic knee pain. Each participant was given the SF-36 and PGI questionnaires to fill out at baseline, day 10, week 7 and week 13 after commencement on analgesia. Responsiveness was measured as a standardised response mean from baseline and contents of the instruments were analysed. Results. The PGI showed the greater responsiveness to analgesics than the SF-36 throughout the study period. Only the Bodily Pain Score of the SF-36 showed comparable responsiveness to the PGI. The standardised response mean of the PGI at 13 weeks was 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.72), and that of the Bodily Pain Score of the SF-36 was 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.58). Content analysis of the PGI identified multiple areas which are not represented in the SF-36 which may help explain its performance. Conclusions. Overall the PGI is more responsive than the SF-36 to commonly used oral analgesics taken for knee pain. The PGI is able to elicit areas of individualised health related quality of life which are not captured by the SF-36