Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Textbook of Pulmonary Rehabilitation

  • 2201 Accesses

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), from specific symptoms to health-related quality life, have been important outcome measures in pulmonary rehabilitation for a long time and paved the way for their use in clinical research in general. The Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire and the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire are the most commonly used instruments in trials of pulmonary rehabilitation. While the development process of PROs received less attention than the validation of PROs, recent developments including guidance from regulatory agencies emphasize the need of a thorough development process including patient input as a basis for the validity, reliability and responsiveness of PROs. The selection of a PRO instrument is greatly facilitated if the systematic approach, presented here, with predefined criteria about the content, measurement properties and practical aspects is followed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2016.

  2. Petty TL, et al. A comprehensive care program for chronic airway obstruction. Methods and preliminary evaluation of symptomatic and functional improvement. Ann Intern Med. 1969;70(6):1109–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McGavin CR, et al. Physical rehabilitation for the chronic bronchitic: results of a controlled trial of exercises in the home. Thorax. 1977;32(3):307–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. McCarthy B, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2:CD003793.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Puhan MA, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation following exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:CD005305.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Guyatt GH, et al. A measure of quality of life for clinical trials in chronic lung disease. Thorax. 1987;42(10):773–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Jones PW, et al. A self-complete measure of health status for chronic airflow limitation. The St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992;145(6):1321–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(8):622–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Celli BR, et al. The body-mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity index in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(10):1005–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Puhan MA, et al. Expansion of the prognostic assessment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the updated BODE index and the ADO index. Lancet. 2009;374(9691):704–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Emery M-P, Perrier L-L, Acquadro C. Patient-reported outcome and quality of life instruments database (PROQOLID): frequently asked questions. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Cazzola M, et al. A review of the most common patient-reported outcomes in COPD—revisiting current knowledge and estimating future challenges. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:725–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ekström M, Sundh J, Larsson K. Patient reported outcome measures in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: which to use? Expert Rev Respir Med. 2016;10(3):351–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones P, et al. Beyond FEV1 in COPD: a review of patient-reported outcomes and their measurement. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2012;7:697–709.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Schünemann HJ, et al. A comparison of the original chronic respiratory questionnaire with a standardized version. Chest. 2003;124(4):1421–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fletcher CM, et al. The significance of respiratory symptoms and the diagnosis of chronic bronchitis in a working population. Br Med J. 1959;2(5147):257–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Mahler DA, Wells CK. Evaluation of clinical methods for rating dyspnea. Chest. 1988;93(3):580–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eakin EG, et al. Reliability and validity of dyspnea measures in patients with obstructive lung disease. Int J Behav Med. 1995;2(2):118–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mahler DA, et al. The measurement of dyspnea. Contents, interobserver agreement, and physiologic correlates of two new clinical indexes. Chest. 1984;85(6):751–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Leidy NK, et al. Development of the EXAcerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT): a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure. Value Health. 2010;13(8):965–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leidy NK, et al. The breathlessness, cough, and sputum scale: the development of empirically based guidelines for interpretation. Chest. 2003;124(6):2182–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van der Molen T, et al. Development, validity and responsiveness of the Clinical COPD questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones PW, et al. Development and first validation of the COPD assessment test. Eur Respir J. 2009;34(3):648–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tarlov AR, et al. The medical outcomes study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA. 1989;262(7):925–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Puhan MA, et al. Relative responsiveness of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire and four other health-related quality of life instruments for patients with chronic lung disease. Respir Med. 2007;101(2):308–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10109801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Puhan MA, et al. Measurement of agreement on health-related quality of life changes in response to respiratory rehabilitation by patients and physicians—a prospective study. Respir Med. 2004;98(12):1195–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bottomley A, Jones D, Claassens L. Patient-reported outcomes: assessment and current perspectives of the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration and the reflection paper of the European Medicines Agency. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(3):347–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. European Medicines Agency. Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. 2005. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/06/WC500168852.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2016.

  31. Patrick DL, 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. 2011a;14(8):967–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Patrick DL, 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. 2011b;14(8):978–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rothman ML, et al. Patient-reported outcomes: conceptual issues. Value Health. 2007;10:S66–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Garcia-Aymerich J, et al. Regular physical activity reduces hospital admission and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a population based cohort study. Thorax. 2006;61(9):772–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Dobbels F, et al. The PROactive innovative conceptual framework on physical activity. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(5):1223–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Gimeno-Santos E, et al. The PROactive instruments to measure physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J. 2015;46(4):988–1000.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Williams K, et al. Patient-reported physical activity questionnaires: a systematic review of content and format. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Frei A, et al. A comprehensive systematic review of the development process of 104 patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for physical activity in chronically ill and elderly people. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:116.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Gimeno-Santos E, et al. Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Remoortel H, Giavedoni S, et al. Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012a;9:84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Rabinovich RA, et al. Validity of physical activity monitors during daily life in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J. 2013;42(5):1205–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Remoortel H, Raste Y, et al. Validity of six activity monitors in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a comparison with indirect calorimetry. PLoS One. 2012b;7(6):e39198.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Weldam SWM, et al. Evaluation of Quality of Life instruments for use in COPD care and research: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(5):688–707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Terwee CB, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Revicki D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Limsuwat C, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation improves only some domains of health-related quality of life measured by the Short Form-36 questionnaire. Ann Thorac Med. 2014;9(3):144–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Smid DE, et al. Responsiveness and MCID estimates for CAT, CCQ, and HADS in patients with COPD undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation: a prospective analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(1):53–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Epidemiology, Biostatistics und Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Hirschengraben 84, Zurich, CH-8001, Switzerland

    Anja Frei & Milo Puhan

Authors
  1. Anja Frei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Milo Puhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milo Puhan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Modena, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Modena Policlinico, Modena, Italy

    Enrico Clini

  2. Alfred Health and Institute for Breathing and Sleep, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

    Anne E. Holland

  3. State University of Londrina, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil

    Fabio Pitta

  4. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Respiratory Division and Rehabilitation, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Thierry Troosters

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Frei, A., Puhan, M. (2018). Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes. In: Clini, E., Holland, A., Pitta, F., Troosters, T. (eds) Textbook of Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65888-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65888-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65887-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65888-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation