Advertisement

Measurement and Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes

  • Klemens B. MeyerEmail author
  • Kimberly A. Clayton
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology™ book series (MIMB, volume 473)

Abstract

The study of patient-reported outcomes, now common in clinical research, had its origins in social and scientific developments during the latter 20th century. Patient-reported outcomes comprise functional and health status, health-related quality of life, and quality of life. The terms overlap and are used inconsistently, and these reports of experience should be distinguished from expressions of preference regarding health states. Regulatory standards from the United States and the European Union provide some guidance regarding reporting of patient-reported outcomes. The determination that measurement of patient-reported outcomes is important depends in part on the balance between subjective and objective outcomes of the health problem under study. Instrument selection depends to a large extent on practical considerations. A number of instruments can be identified that are frequently used in particular clinical situations. The domain coverage of commonly used generic short forms varies substantially. Individualized measurement of quality of life is possible, but resource intensive. Focus groups are useful, not only for scale development but to confirm the appropriateness of existing instruments.

Under classical test theory, validity and reliability are the critical characteristics of tests. Under item response theory, validity remains central, but the focus moves from the reliability of scales to the relative levels of traits in individuals and items' relative difficulty. Plans for clinical studies should include an explicit model of the relationship of patient-reported outcomes to other parameters, as well as definition of the magnitude of difference in patient-reported outcomes that will be considered important. Prevention of missing patient-reported outcome data is particularly important; to a limited extent, a variety of statistical techniques can mitigate the consequences of missing data.

Key words

Patient-reported outcomes health-related quality of life quality of life functional status health status 

References

  1. 1.
    1. McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    2. Elkinton, J. R. (1966). Medicine and the quality of life. Ann Intern Med 64 (3), 711–714.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noll, H.-H. Social Indicators and Social Reporting: The International Experience (Part 1). Canadian Council on Social Development.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    United Nations. (1946). Constitution of the World Health Organization, p. 2.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    5. Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R. (2003). Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 3rd ed. Oxford Medical Publications. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Center for Health Promotion, University of Toronto. QOL Concepts: The QOL Model. University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2006). Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims DRAFT GUIDANCE. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    8. Chassany, O., et al. (2002). Patient-reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life. A European guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Information Journal 36, 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    9. McHorney, C. A. (1999). Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Ann Rev Public Health 20, 309–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    10. Hays, R. D. (2005). Generic versus disease-targeted instruments, in (Fayers, P. M., and Hays, R. D., eds.) Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    11. McHorney, C. A., et al. (2002) The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: III. Documentation of reliability and validity. Dysphagia 17 (2), 97–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    12. O'Boyle, C. A., Hoefer, S., Ring, L. (2005). Individualized quality of life, in (Fayers, P. M., and Hays, R. D., eds.) Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 225–242.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    13. Cote-Arsenault, D., Morrison-Beedy, D. (1999). Practical advice for planning and conducting focus groups. Nurs Res 48 (5), 280–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Association of Facilitators. (2002). Basic Facilitation Skills. Freely available 40-page manual on facilitation in general.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    15. Greenbaum, T. L. (2000). Moderating Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Group Facilitation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenbaum, T. L. (2000). Moderating Focus Groups. on-line summary Sage publication by Thomas Greenbaum.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    17. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    18. Weatherley, B. D., et al. (2006). The reliability of the ankle-brachial index in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and the NHLBI Family Heart Study (FHS). BMC Cardiovasc Disord 6, 7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    19. Hays, R.D., Morales L. S., Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 38 (9, Suppl), II28–II42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    20. McHorney, C. A. (2003). Ten recommendations for advancing patient-centered outcomes measurement for older persons. Ann Intern Med 139 (5, Pt 2), 403–409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    21. Guyatt, G. H., et al. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 77 (4), 371–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    22. Sprangers, M. A., et al. (2002). Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A users' guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc 77 (6), 561–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    23. Osoba, D., King, M. (2005). Meaningful differences, in (Fayers, P. M., and Hays, R. D., eds.) Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 243–257.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    24. Fairclough, D. L. (2002). Design and Analysis of Quality of Life Studies in Clinical Trials: Interdisciplinary Statistics. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    25. Fairclough, D. L. (2004). Patient reported outcomes as endpoints in medical research. Stat Methods Med Res 13(2), 115–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Other Sources

  1. 1.
    1. Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R. (2003). Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York. A terse, organized, and elegant introduction to the field with a single authorial voice.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    2. Fayers, P. M., Hays, R. D. (2005). Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York. A collection of essays by well-known investigators.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    3. McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York. A compendium of over 100 instruments, each accompanied by a critical essay, actual items of the instrument, and a bibliography. It begins with a 35-page essay, “Theoretical and Technical Foundations of Health Measurement.” Its areas include physical disability and handicap, social health, psychological well-being, anxiety, depression, mental status testing, pain, general health status and quality of life.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    4. Embretson, S. E., Reise, S. P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    PROQOLID: Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database, available at http://www.qolid.org Online database maintained by MAPI Research Trust, currently cataloging 562 instruments. Basic information is freely available, details for a fee.
  6. 6.
    International Quality of Life Assessment Project Links Page, available at http://www.iqola.org/links.aspx. Links to other patient outcome Web sites.
  7. 7.
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, available at http://www.hqlo.com Freely available online journal.

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tufts—New England Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations