Cargando…

Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are integral to patient care, policy decision making and healthcare delivery. PRO assessment in pressure ulcers is in its infancy, with few studies including PROs as study outcomes. Further, there are no pressure ulcer PRO instruments available. METHOD...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gorecki, Claudia, Brown, Julia M, Cano, Stefan, Lamping, Donna L, Briggs, Michelle, Coleman, Susanne, Dealey, Carol, McGinnis, Elizabeth, Nelson, Andrea E, Stubbs, Nikki, Wilson, Lyn, Nixon, Jane
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698102/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23764247
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-95
_version_ 1782275241790144512
author Gorecki, Claudia
Brown, Julia M
Cano, Stefan
Lamping, Donna L
Briggs, Michelle
Coleman, Susanne
Dealey, Carol
McGinnis, Elizabeth
Nelson, Andrea E
Stubbs, Nikki
Wilson, Lyn
Nixon, Jane
author_facet Gorecki, Claudia
Brown, Julia M
Cano, Stefan
Lamping, Donna L
Briggs, Michelle
Coleman, Susanne
Dealey, Carol
McGinnis, Elizabeth
Nelson, Andrea E
Stubbs, Nikki
Wilson, Lyn
Nixon, Jane
author_sort Gorecki, Claudia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are integral to patient care, policy decision making and healthcare delivery. PRO assessment in pressure ulcers is in its infancy, with few studies including PROs as study outcomes. Further, there are no pressure ulcer PRO instruments available. METHODS: We used gold-standard methods to develop and evaluate a new PRO instrument for people with pressure ulcers (the PU-QOL instrument). Firstly a conceptual framework was developed forming the basis of PU-QOL scales. Next an exhaustive item pool was used to produce a draft instrument that was pretested using mixed methods (cognitive interviews and Rasch Measurement Theory). Finally, we undertook psychometric evaluation in two parts. This first part was item reduction, using PU-QOL data from 227 patients. The second part was reliability and validity evaluation of the item-reduced version using both Traditional and Rasch methods, on PU-QOL data from 229 patients. RESULTS: The final PU-QOL contains 10 scales for measuring symptoms, physical functioning, psychological well-being and social participation specific to pressure ulcers. It is intended for administration and patients rate the amount of “bother” attributed during the past week on a 3-point response scale. Scale scores are generated by summing items, with lower scores indicating better outcome. The PU-QOL instrument was found to be acceptable, reliable (Cronbach’s alpha values ranging 0.89 - 0.97) and valid (hypothesised correlations between PU-QOL and SF-12 scores (r >0.30) and PU-QOL scales and sociodemographic variables (r <0.30) were consistent with predictions). CONCLUSIONS: The PU-QOL instrument provides a standardised method for assessing PROs, reflecting the domains in a pressure ulcer-specific conceptual framework. It is intended for evaluating patient orientated differences between interventions and in particular the impact from the perspective of patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3698102
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36981022013-07-02 Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument Gorecki, Claudia Brown, Julia M Cano, Stefan Lamping, Donna L Briggs, Michelle Coleman, Susanne Dealey, Carol McGinnis, Elizabeth Nelson, Andrea E Stubbs, Nikki Wilson, Lyn Nixon, Jane Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are integral to patient care, policy decision making and healthcare delivery. PRO assessment in pressure ulcers is in its infancy, with few studies including PROs as study outcomes. Further, there are no pressure ulcer PRO instruments available. METHODS: We used gold-standard methods to develop and evaluate a new PRO instrument for people with pressure ulcers (the PU-QOL instrument). Firstly a conceptual framework was developed forming the basis of PU-QOL scales. Next an exhaustive item pool was used to produce a draft instrument that was pretested using mixed methods (cognitive interviews and Rasch Measurement Theory). Finally, we undertook psychometric evaluation in two parts. This first part was item reduction, using PU-QOL data from 227 patients. The second part was reliability and validity evaluation of the item-reduced version using both Traditional and Rasch methods, on PU-QOL data from 229 patients. RESULTS: The final PU-QOL contains 10 scales for measuring symptoms, physical functioning, psychological well-being and social participation specific to pressure ulcers. It is intended for administration and patients rate the amount of “bother” attributed during the past week on a 3-point response scale. Scale scores are generated by summing items, with lower scores indicating better outcome. The PU-QOL instrument was found to be acceptable, reliable (Cronbach’s alpha values ranging 0.89 - 0.97) and valid (hypothesised correlations between PU-QOL and SF-12 scores (r >0.30) and PU-QOL scales and sociodemographic variables (r <0.30) were consistent with predictions). CONCLUSIONS: The PU-QOL instrument provides a standardised method for assessing PROs, reflecting the domains in a pressure ulcer-specific conceptual framework. It is intended for evaluating patient orientated differences between interventions and in particular the impact from the perspective of patients. BioMed Central 2013-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3698102/ /pubmed/23764247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-95 Text en Copyright © 2013 Gorecki et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Gorecki, Claudia
Brown, Julia M
Cano, Stefan
Lamping, Donna L
Briggs, Michelle
Coleman, Susanne
Dealey, Carol
McGinnis, Elizabeth
Nelson, Andrea E
Stubbs, Nikki
Wilson, Lyn
Nixon, Jane
Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument
title Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument
title_full Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument
title_fullStr Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument
title_full_unstemmed Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument
title_short Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument
title_sort development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the pu-qol instrument
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698102/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23764247
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-95
work_keys_str_mv AT goreckiclaudia developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT brownjuliam developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT canostefan developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT lampingdonnal developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT briggsmichelle developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT colemansusanne developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT dealeycarol developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT mcginniselizabeth developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT nelsonandreae developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT stubbsnikki developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT wilsonlyn developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument
AT nixonjane developmentandvalidationofanewpatientreportedoutcomemeasureforpatientswithpressureulcersthepuqolinstrument