Not all patient-reported outcomes are patient-centered, and not all patient-centered outcomes are patient-reported. The essential characteristic of a patient-centered approach to outcome measurement is that it assesses concepts (i.e., health-related phenomena) that are considered most important by members of a given target population, based on direct input from representatives of that population. Concepts for measurement should not be selected based solely on convenience or interest to investigators. Patient-centered patient-reported outcome measures must meet this criterion and also be meaningful and comprehensible to members of a population when administered, including among those with diverse racial/cultural backgrounds and lower educational/literacy levels

Abernethy, A.P.

Basch, E.

Reeve, B.B.

PubMed

Carolina Digital Repository

Assuring the patient-centeredness of patient-reported outcomes: content validity in medical product development and comparative effectiveness researchEthan Basch, MD, MSc1, Amy P. Abernethy, MD2, and Bryce B. Reeve, PhD31Center for Policy and Outcomes Research, Health Outcomes Research Group, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA2Duke Cancer Care Research Program, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA3Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USAKeywordsPatient-reported outcomes; Comparative effectiveness research; Patient-centered outcomes research; PRO; CER; PCORNot all patient-reported outcomes are patient-centered, and not all patient-centered outcomes are patient-reported.The essential characteristic of a patient-centered approach to outcome measurement is that it assesses concepts (i.e., health-related phenomena) that are considered most important by members of a given target population, based on direct input from representatives of that population. Concepts for measurement should not be selected based solely on convenience or interest to investigators. Patient-centered patient-reported outcome measures must meet this criterion and also be meaningful and comprehensible to members of a population when administered, including among those with diverse racial/cultural backgrounds and lower educational/literacy levels.An example of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure which is not optimally patient-centered is the Present Pain Intensity (PPI) item of the McGill Pain Questionnaire [1]. The PPI has been used as a PRO measure in multiple phase III clinical trials in the regulatory context (including serving as the basis for US drug approval and labeling of the cancer drug mitoxantrone in 1996) [2]. This measure, however, was initially developed for clinician © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).Published by Elsevier Inc.Corresponding Author: Ethan Basch, Center for Policy and Outcomes Research, Health Outcomes Research Group, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, USA 10065. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.NIH Public AccessAuthor ManuscriptValue Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 February 06.Published in final edited form as:Value Health. 2011 December ; 14(8): 965–966. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.10.002.NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscriptreporting and never underwent qualitative evaluation with direct patient input. The item asks respondents:How strong is your pain?1 2 3 4 5Mild Discomforting Distressing Horrible ExcruciatingThe response options mix up the attributes of intensity (“mild”) and bother (“distressing”), and the distinctions between options at each extreme of the scale are not clear (“mild” vs. “discomforting” and “horrible” vs. “excruciating”). Item development with direct patient input, and cognitive interviewing to assure patient understanding, would likely have yielded different response options. These limitations were highlighted at a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Drug Advisory Committee in 2007 [3], just subsequent to issuance of the FDA's 2006 draft Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims (issued in final form in 2009) [4]. Subsequently, use of the “worst pain item” of the Brief Pain Inventory has been advocated by the FDA for pain intensity assessment in the regulatory context [5].Because the PPI was not developed with a patient-centered approach, its ability to adequately assess the patient pain experience associated with disease and treatment is in question. Viewing this same concept through a patient lens, a patient-centered patient-reported outcome measure must be understandable to patients with a variety of backgrounds, which requires direct patient input during development and revisions.In contrast, a measure can be patient-centered without being a PRO. For example, exercise capacity is an important concept to patients in selected contexts, and is best evaluated with an objective approach such as a treadmill test.These examples highlight the importance of thoughtfulness when selecting or developing outcomes for use in clinical research. As alluded to above, this applies both to the identification of concepts to be evaluated as outcomes in a given context, and to the development of outcome measures for assessing these concepts.The two-part paper on content validity in this issue of Value in Health [7,8] provides an important contribution to the methodological literature and complements the FDA's PRO Guidance towards standardizing methods for development of endpoint models and PRO instruments which are optimally patient-centered. The key message of this paper is the importance of directly eliciting the patient perspective through qualitative research during identification of concepts to be evaluated (whether patient-reported or not), and development/refinement of PRO measures.There have been critiques of the FDA's PRO Guidance as setting too high a methodological bar for sponsors to attain and of its approach to content validity as being overly focused on qualitative over quantitative methods [8]. While there is some truth to these assertions, the overall impact of the FDA's emphasis on qualitative methods has been positive, leading Basch et al. Page 2Value Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 February 06.NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscriptinvestigators in both the regulatory and non-regulatory spaces to focus on the patient perspective – thus creating a need for a blueprint as provided by the two-part paper in this issue.A potential limitation of the methods described in this two-part paper is reliance on the good faith and judgment of investigators who are interpreting qualitative data to decide which concepts are most appropriate to measure in a given context. There is a risk that investigators will select concepts for measurement which cast a particular product in the most positive light while ignoring other concepts which could appear less favorable. For example, if a product reduces pain but increases fatigue, investigators could choose to evaluate only the former although both are important to patients. This misuse of the regulatory tenet of “fit for use” endpoint design risks conveying an incomplete picture of the impact of treatment on the patient subjective experience. In fact, in part one of this paper, in the discussion titled “Understand the Disease or Condition in the Target Population” it is acknowledged that “The selection of outcomes appropriate for a given trial program is often informed by consultation with clinical, trial design, and measurement experts as well as an extensive literature review.”Therefore, a key item for investigators who are developing a new PRO measure, or selecting an existing measure for use in a new study, to 1) describe all of the concepts reported as important by patients in the target population or in a closely related population, and 2) provide a rationale for which concepts were included or excluded.How are the recommendations of this two-part paper, which largely apply to the regulatory context (and largely to the US regulatory context), apply to comparative effectiveness research (CER)? For prospective CER controlled clinical studies, the recommendations should be taken virtually intact, with a particular emphasis on developing conceptual frameworks for the relationships of various outcomes - as elegantly shown for psoriasis in Figure 1 of part one of the paper. But the “fit for purpose” focus of the regulatory setting is less applicable to other CER approaches such as registries or longitudinal observational studies which are often more exploratory in nature. In such instances, inclusion of a broader selection of outcomes, some intended for signal generation beyond initial qualitative work, is merited. For example, a multi-item symptom or HRQL battery is appropriate, in addition to measurement of context-specific concepts of interest. Regardless, up-front qualitative research to identify salient concepts prior to conducting any type of prospective clinical CER is strongly recommended. It is critical to remember that research to inform care of patients – and to be understood and interpreted by patients – is one of the targets of CER; hence patient-centered PRO measures need to be consistently understandable and meaningful to patients themselves, and this generally requires patient input up front. Notably, additional qualitative evaluations with patients after completing quantitative psychometric studies can also be informative. For example, in psychometric analysis of a patient-reported measure, an item response bias could be detected (i.e., differential item functioning, DIF) between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients. Statistical tools can identify DIF, but it requires qualitative work to illuminate underlying drivers of these differences. Qualitative methods can also be incorporated into prospective clinical research to provide insights about patient perspectives at key time points, or about the relationships of outcomes Basch et al. Page 3Value Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 February 06.NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscriptto each other or with interventions. Once a measure is developed, it should be periodically re-evaluated as treatment paradigms and patient perspectives shift over time, to assure it remains appropriate and representative of meaningful concepts.As noted in the two-part paper, central to the importance of conducting qualitative evaluations for establishing content validity in the regulatory and CER environments is inclusion of a heterogeneous sample within the target population. In addition to including representatives of various racial/cultural or applicable linguistic backgrounds, those with diverse educational/literacy levels should be included. Moreover, methodological expertise to analyze these data and adjust verbiage accordingly is recommended. Patients with higher educational levels are easier to identify and recruit in clinical research, and therefore efforts must be made to include hard-to-reach individuals. For example, it is a requirement in the development work of two US National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiatives, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), to include cognitive interviews among patients with low education levels (e.g., < 12 years of education or measured reading level less than 9th grade using the Wide Range Achievement Test-3 Reading subtest) [9,10]. In summary, qualitative research is essential for identifying concepts for measurement in a given target population, for refining measures which assess these concepts, and for continued assurance that the concepts and measures remain appropriate and meaningful over time. This work should include hard-to-reach patients, particularly those of diverse racial/cultural and educational/literacy levels. This approach applies both to trials in the regulatory context and to prospective clinical CER. Beginning this process as early as possible in a given research program will afford an opportunity to develop or select appropriate concepts and measures that are optimally patient centered.AcknowledgmentsSource of financial support: None.References1. Graham C, Bond S, Gerkovich M, Cook M. Use of the McGill Pain Questionnaire in the assessment of cancer pain: replicability and consistency. Pain. 1980; 8:377–87. [PubMed: 7402695] 2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Accessed March 20, 2011] Novantrone Drug Label. Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/019297s030s031lbl.pdf3. FDA Office of Oncology Drug Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. [Accessed Octomber 3, 2011] FDA Expectations for Endpoint Adequacy. Presentation at Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC). Jul 24. 2007 Available from: www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/slides/2007-4309s1-14-FDA-Basch.ppt4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Accessed September 28, 2011] Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Issued December 2009. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf5. Atkinson TM, Mendoza TR, Sit L, et al. The Brief Pain Inventory and its “pain at its worst in the last 24 hours” item: clinical trial endpoint considerations. Pain Med. 2010; 11:337–46. [PubMed: 20030743] Basch et al. Page 4Value Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 February 06.NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript6. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity - establishing and reporting the evidence in newly-developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1 – Eliciting Concepts for a New PRO Instrument. Value Health. 2011; 14:XX–XX.7. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity - establishing and reporting the evidence in newly-developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ispor pro good research practices task force report: Part II - Assessing Respondent Understanding. Value Health. 2011; 14:XX–XX.8. Magasi S, Ryan G, Revicki D, et al. Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. Qual Life Res. 2011 August 25, 2011. 9. DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone A. on behalf of the PROMIS Cooperative Group. Evaluation of Item Candidates - The PROMIS Qualitative Item Review. Med Care. 2007; 45(Suppl):S12–S21. [PubMed: 17443114] 10. Hay J, Atkinson TM, Mendoza TR, et al. Refinement of the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) via cognitive interviewing. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(Suppl):15s. abstr 9060. Basch et al. Page 5Value Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 February 06.NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript

Assuring the patient centeredness of patient-reported outcomes: Content validity in medical product development and comparative effectiveness research

Ethan Basch

Amy P. Abernethy

Bryce B. Reeve

Crossref

Value in Health

Assuring the Patient Centeredness of Patient-Reported Outcomes: Content Validity in Medical Product Development and Comparative Effectiveness Research

Basch, Ethan

Abernethy, Amy P.

Reeve, Bryce B.

Elsevier - Publisher Connector 

m
s
a
e
c
t
P
c
l
s
n
T
G
i
B
t
V A L U E I N H E A L T H 1 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 9 6 5 – 9 6 6
Avai lable onl ine at www.sc iencedirect .com
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / jva lEDITORIAL
Assuring the Patient Centeredness of Patient-Reported Outcomes:
Content Validity in Medical Product Development and Comparative
Effectiveness ResearchNot all patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are patient centered, and
not all patient-centered outcomes are patient reported.
The essential characteristic of a patient-centered approach to
outcome measurement is that it assesses concepts (i.e., health-
related phenomena) that are considered most important by mem-
bers of a given target population, based on direct input from rep-
resentatives of that population. Concepts for measurement
should not be selected based solely on convenience or interest to
investigators. Patient-centered patient-reported outcome measures
ust meet this criterion and also be meaningful and comprehen-
ible to members of a population when administered, including
mong those with diverse racial/cultural backgrounds and lower
ducational/literacy levels.
An example of a PRO measure that is not optimally patient
entered is the Present Pain Intensity item of the McGill Pain Ques-
ionnaire [1]. The Present Pain Intensity item has been used as a
RO measure in multiple phase III clinical trials in the regulatory
ontext (including serving as the basis for U.S. drug approval and
abeling of the cancer drug mitoxantrone in 1996) [2]. This mea-
ure, however, was initially developed for clinician reporting and
ever underwent qualitative evaluation with direct patient input.
he item asks respondents:
How strong is your pain?
1 2 3 4 5
Mild Discomforting Distressing Horrible Excruciating
The response options mix up the attributes of intensity (“mild”)
and bother (“distressing”), and the distinctions between options at
each extreme of the scale are not clear (“mild” vs. “discomforting”
and “horrible” vs. “excruciating”). Item development with direct
patient input, and cognitive interviewing to ensure patient under-
standing, would likely have yielded different response options.
These limitations were highlighted at a meeting of the Food and
Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Oncology Drug Advisory Commit-
tee in 2007 [3], just subsequent to the issuance of FDA’s 2006 draft
uidance for industry: Patient-reported outcomes measures: Use in med-
cal product development to support labeling claims (issued in final
form in 2009) [4]. Subsequently, use of the “worst pain item” of the
rief Pain Inventory has been advocated by the FDA for pain in-
ensity assessment in the regulatory context [5].
Because the Present Pain Intensity item was not developed
with a patient-centered approach, its ability to adequately assess
the patient pain experience associated with disease and treatment
is in question. Viewing this same concept through a patient lens, a
patient-centered PRO measure must be understandable to pa-tients with a variety of backgrounds, which requires direct patient
input during development and revisions.
In contrast, a measure can be patient centered without being a
PRO. For example, exercise capacity is an important concept to
patients in selected contexts and is best evaluated with an objec-
tive approach such as a treadmill test.
These examples highlight the importance of thoughtfulness
when selecting or developing outcomes for use in clinical re-
search. As alluded to above, this applies both to the identification of
concepts to be evaluated as outcomes in a given context and to the
development of outcome measures for assessing these concepts.
The two-part article on content validity in this issue of Value in
Health [6,7] provides an important contribution to the methodolog-
ical literature and complements FDA’s PRO Guidance toward stan-
dardizing methods for the development of end-point models and
PRO instruments that are optimally patient centered. The key
message of this article is the importance of directly eliciting the
patient perspective through qualitative research during identifi-
cation of concepts to be evaluated (whether patient reported or
not) and development/refinement of PRO measures.
There have been critiques of FDA’s PRO Guidance as setting too
high a methodological bar for sponsors to attain and of its ap-
proach to content validity as being overly focused on qualitative
over quantitative methods [8]. While there is some truth to these
assertions, the overall impact of FDA’s emphasis on qualitative
methods has been positive, leading investigators in both the reg-
ulatory and nonregulatory spaces to focus on the patient perspec-
tive, thus creating a need for a blueprint as provided by the two-
part article in this issue.
A potential limitation of the methods described in this two-
part article is reliance on the good faith and judgment of investi-
gators who are interpreting qualitative data to decide which con-
cepts are most appropriate to measure in a given context. There is
a risk that investigators will select concepts for measurement that
cast a particular product in the most positive light while ignoring
other concepts that could appear less favorable. For example, if a
product reduces pain but increases nausea, investigators could
choose to evaluate only the former although both are important to
patients.
This misuse of the regulatory tenet of “fit-for-use” end-point
design risks conveying an incomplete picture of the impact of
treatment on the patient’s subjective experience. In fact, in part
one of this article, in the discussion titled “Understand the disease
or condition in the target population” it is acknowledged that “The
selection of outcomes appropriate for a given trial program is often
informed by consultation with clinical, trial design, and measure-
ment experts as well as an extensive literature review.”
Therefore, a key item for investigators who are developing a
new PRO measure, or selecting an existing measure for use in a
[966 V A L U E I N H E A L T H 1 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 9 6 5 – 9 6 6new study, is to 1) describe all the concepts reported as important
by patients in the target population or in a closely related popula-
tion and 2) provide a rationale for which concepts were included or
excluded.
How do the recommendations of this two-part article, which
largely apply to the regulatory context (and largely to the U.S. reg-
ulatory context), apply to comparative effectiveness research
(CER)? For prospective CER controlled clinical studies, the recom-
mendations should be taken virtually intact, with a particular em-
phasis on developing conceptual frameworks for the relationships
of various outcomes—as elegantly shown for psoriasis in Figure 1
of part one of the article. But the “fit for purpose” focus of the
regulatory setting is less applicable to other CER approaches such
as registries or longitudinal observational studies that are often
more exploratory in nature. In such instances, inclusion of a
broader selection of outcomes, some intended for signal genera-
tion beyond initial qualitative work, is merited. For example, a
multi-item symptom or health-related quality-of-life battery is
appropriate, in addition to measurement of context-specific con-
cepts of interest. Regardless, upfront qualitative research to iden-
tify salient concepts prior to conducting any type of prospective
clinical CER is strongly recommended. It is critical to remember
that research to inform care of patients—and to be understood and
interpreted by patients—is one of the targets of CER; hence pa-
tient-centered PRO measures need to be consistently understand-
able and meaningful to patients themselves, and this generally
requires patient input up front. Notably, additional qualitative
evaluations with patients after completing quantitative psycho-
metric studies can also be informative. For example, in the psy-
chometric analysis of a patient-reported measure, an item re-
sponse bias could be detected (i.e., differential item functioning)
between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients. Statistical tools can
identify differential item functioning, but it requires qualitative
work to illuminate the underlying drivers of these differences.
Qualitative methods can also be incorporated into prospective
clinical research to provide insights about patient perspectives at
key time points, or about the relationships of outcomes with each
other or with interventions. Once a measure is developed, it
should be periodically re-evaluated as treatment paradigms and
patient perspectives shift over time, to ensure that it remains ap-
propriate and representative of meaningful concepts.
As noted in the two-part article, central to the importance of
conducting qualitative evaluations for establishing content valid-
ity in the regulatory and CER environments is inclusion of a het-
erogeneous sample within the target population. In addition to
including representatives of various racial/cultural or applicable
linguistic backgrounds, those with diverse educational/literacy
levels should be included. Moreover, methodological expertise to
analyze these data and adjust verbiage accordingly is recom-
mended. Patients with higher educational levels are easier to iden-
tify and recruit in clinical research, and therefore efforts must be
made to include hard-to-reach individuals. For example, it is a
requirement in the development work of two U.S. National Insti-
tutes of Health initiatives, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Mea-
surement Information System (PROMIS) and the Patient-Reported
Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Ad-
verse Events (PRO-CTCAE), to include cognitive interviews among
patients with low education levels (e.g., 12 years of education or
measured reading level ninth grade using the Wide Range
Achievement Test-3 Reading subtest) [9,10].
In summary, qualitative research is essential for identifying
concepts for measurement in a given target population, for refin-
ing measures that assess these concepts, and for continued assur-
ance that the concepts and measures remain appropriate and
meaningful over time. This work should include hard-to-reach
patients, particularly those of diverse racial/cultural and educa-tional/literacy levels. This approach applies both to trials in the
regulatory context and to prospective clinical CER. Beginning this
process as early as possible in a given research program will afford
an opportunity to develop or select appropriate concepts and mea-
sures that are optimally patient centered.
Source of financial support: The authors have no financial re-
lationships to disclose.
Ethan Basch, MD, MSc
Health Outcomes Research Group, Center for Policy and
Outcomes Research, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center,
New York, NY, USA
Amy P. Abernethy, MD
Duke Cancer Care Research Program, Duke Cancer Institute,
Durham, NC, USA
Bryce B. Reeve, PhD
Department of Health Policy and Management, Lineberger
Comprehensive Cancer Center, Gillings School of Global Public
Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
1098-3015/$36.00 – see front matter
Copyright © 2011, International Society for
Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).
Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.10.002
R E F E R E N C E S
[1] Graham C, Bond S, Gerkovich M, Cook M. Use of the McGill Pain
Questionnaire in the assessment of cancer pain: replicability and
consistency. Pain 1980;8:377–87.
[2] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Novantrone drug label. Available
from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/
019297s030s031lbl.pdf. [Accessed March 20, 2011].
[3] FDA Office of Oncology Drug Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research. FDA expectations for endpoint adequacy: presentation at
Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC), July 24, 2007. Available
from: www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/slides/2007-4309s1-14-FDA-
Basch.ppt. [Accessed October 3, 2011].
[4] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-
reported outcomes measures: use in medical product development to
support labeling claims. December 2009. Available from: http://www.
fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/
Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. [Accessed September 28, 2011].
[5] Atkinson TM, Mendoza TR, Sit L, et al. The Brief Pain Inventory and its
“pain at its worst in the last 24 hours” item: clinical trial endpoint
considerations. Pain Med 2010;11:337–46.
[6] Patrick, DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity—establishing and
reporting the evidence in newly-developed patient-reported outcomes
(PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good
research practices task force report, Part 1—eliciting concepts for a new
PRO Instrument. Value Health 2011;14:967–77.
[7] Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity—establishing
and reporting the evidence in newly-developed patient-reported
outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR
PRO good research practices task force report, Part 2—assessing
respondent understanding. Value Health 2011;14:978–88.
[8] Magasi S, Ryan G, Revicki D, et al. Content validity of patient-reported
outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. Qual Life
Res. In press.
[9] DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone A, on behalf of the PROMIS
Cooperative Group. Evaluation of item candidates—the PROMIS
qualitative item review. Med Care 2007;45(Suppl.):S12–21.
10] Hay J, Atkinson TM, Mendoza TR, et al. Refinement of the Patient-
Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for
Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) via cognitive interviewing. J Clin Oncol
2010;28(Suppl.):15s; abstr 9060.


Assuring the Patient Centeredness of Patient-Reported Outcomes: Content Validity in Medical Product Development and Comparative Effectiveness Research 

https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/3n204734k

Assuring the patient centeredness of patient-reported outcomes: Content validity in medical product development and comparative effectiveness research

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Carolina Digital Repository

Crossref

Elsevier - Publisher Connector

Elsevier - Publisher Connector