Cargando…
A composite measure for patient-reported outcomes in orthopedic care: design principles and validity checks
BACKGROUND: The complex, multidimensional nature of healthcare quality makes provider and treatment decisions based on quality difficult. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can enhance patient centricity and involvement. The proliferation of PRO measures, however, requires a simplification to i...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10329084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36964454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03395-0 |
_version_ | 1785069948002893824 |
---|---|
author | Schöner, Lukas Kuklinski, David Geissler, Alexander Busse, Reinhard Pross, Christoph |
author_facet | Schöner, Lukas Kuklinski, David Geissler, Alexander Busse, Reinhard Pross, Christoph |
author_sort | Schöner, Lukas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The complex, multidimensional nature of healthcare quality makes provider and treatment decisions based on quality difficult. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can enhance patient centricity and involvement. The proliferation of PRO measures, however, requires a simplification to improve comprehensibility. Composite measures can simplify complex data without sacrificing the underlying information. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: We propose a five-step development approach to combine different PRO into one composite measure (PRO-CM): (i) theoretical framework and metric selection, (ii) initial data analysis, (iii) rescaling, (iv) weighting and aggregation, and (v) sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. We evaluate different rescaling, weighting, and aggregation methods by utilizing data of 3145 hip and 2605 knee replacement patients, to identify the most advantageous development approach for a PRO-CM that reflects quality variations from a patient perspective. RESULTS: The comparison of different methods within steps (iii) and (iv) reveals the following methods as most advantageous: (iii) rescaling via z-score standardization and (iv) applying differential weights and additive aggregation. The resulting PRO-CM is most sensitive to variations in physical health. Changing weighting schemes impacts the PRO-CM most directly, while it proves more robust towards different rescaling and aggregation approaches. CONCLUSION: Combining multiple PRO provides a holistic picture of patients’ health improvement. The PRO-CM can enhance patient understanding and simplify reporting and monitoring of PRO. However, the development methodology of a PRO-CM needs to be justified and transparent to ensure that it is comprehensible and replicable. This is essential to address the well-known problems associated with composites, such as misinterpretation and lack of trust. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-023-03395-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10329084 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103290842023-07-09 A composite measure for patient-reported outcomes in orthopedic care: design principles and validity checks Schöner, Lukas Kuklinski, David Geissler, Alexander Busse, Reinhard Pross, Christoph Qual Life Res Article BACKGROUND: The complex, multidimensional nature of healthcare quality makes provider and treatment decisions based on quality difficult. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can enhance patient centricity and involvement. The proliferation of PRO measures, however, requires a simplification to improve comprehensibility. Composite measures can simplify complex data without sacrificing the underlying information. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: We propose a five-step development approach to combine different PRO into one composite measure (PRO-CM): (i) theoretical framework and metric selection, (ii) initial data analysis, (iii) rescaling, (iv) weighting and aggregation, and (v) sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. We evaluate different rescaling, weighting, and aggregation methods by utilizing data of 3145 hip and 2605 knee replacement patients, to identify the most advantageous development approach for a PRO-CM that reflects quality variations from a patient perspective. RESULTS: The comparison of different methods within steps (iii) and (iv) reveals the following methods as most advantageous: (iii) rescaling via z-score standardization and (iv) applying differential weights and additive aggregation. The resulting PRO-CM is most sensitive to variations in physical health. Changing weighting schemes impacts the PRO-CM most directly, while it proves more robust towards different rescaling and aggregation approaches. CONCLUSION: Combining multiple PRO provides a holistic picture of patients’ health improvement. The PRO-CM can enhance patient understanding and simplify reporting and monitoring of PRO. However, the development methodology of a PRO-CM needs to be justified and transparent to ensure that it is comprehensible and replicable. This is essential to address the well-known problems associated with composites, such as misinterpretation and lack of trust. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-023-03395-0. Springer International Publishing 2023-03-24 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10329084/ /pubmed/36964454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03395-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Schöner, Lukas Kuklinski, David Geissler, Alexander Busse, Reinhard Pross, Christoph A composite measure for patient-reported outcomes in orthopedic care: design principles and validity checks |
title | A composite measure for patient-reported outcomes in orthopedic care: design principles and validity checks |
title_full | A composite measure for patient-reported outcomes in orthopedic care: design principles and validity checks |
title_fullStr | A composite measure for patient-reported outcomes in orthopedic care: design principles and validity checks |
title_full_unstemmed | A composite measure for patient-reported outcomes in orthopedic care: design principles and validity checks |
title_short | A composite measure for patient-reported outcomes in orthopedic care: design principles and validity checks |
title_sort | composite measure for patient-reported outcomes in orthopedic care: design principles and validity checks |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10329084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36964454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03395-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schonerlukas acompositemeasureforpatientreportedoutcomesinorthopediccaredesignprinciplesandvaliditychecks AT kuklinskidavid acompositemeasureforpatientreportedoutcomesinorthopediccaredesignprinciplesandvaliditychecks AT geissleralexander acompositemeasureforpatientreportedoutcomesinorthopediccaredesignprinciplesandvaliditychecks AT bussereinhard acompositemeasureforpatientreportedoutcomesinorthopediccaredesignprinciplesandvaliditychecks AT prosschristoph acompositemeasureforpatientreportedoutcomesinorthopediccaredesignprinciplesandvaliditychecks AT schonerlukas compositemeasureforpatientreportedoutcomesinorthopediccaredesignprinciplesandvaliditychecks AT kuklinskidavid compositemeasureforpatientreportedoutcomesinorthopediccaredesignprinciplesandvaliditychecks AT geissleralexander compositemeasureforpatientreportedoutcomesinorthopediccaredesignprinciplesandvaliditychecks AT bussereinhard compositemeasureforpatientreportedoutcomesinorthopediccaredesignprinciplesandvaliditychecks AT prosschristoph compositemeasureforpatientreportedoutcomesinorthopediccaredesignprinciplesandvaliditychecks |