Cargando…

Construct and concurrent validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Direct patient-reported information about adverse drug events (ADEs) is important since it adds to healthcare professional-reported information about the safety of drugs. Previously, we developed an instrument to assess patient-reported ADEs in research settings. The aim of this study is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Vries, Sieta T, Haaijer-Ruskamp, Flora M, de Zeeuw, Dick, Denig, Petra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243939/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25115618
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0103-6
_version_ 1782346161056645120
author de Vries, Sieta T
Haaijer-Ruskamp, Flora M
de Zeeuw, Dick
Denig, Petra
author_facet de Vries, Sieta T
Haaijer-Ruskamp, Flora M
de Zeeuw, Dick
Denig, Petra
author_sort de Vries, Sieta T
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Direct patient-reported information about adverse drug events (ADEs) is important since it adds to healthcare professional-reported information about the safety of drugs. Previously, we developed an instrument to assess patient-reported ADEs in research settings. The aim of this study is to assess the construct and concurrent validity of the questionnaire. METHODS: Patients on at least an oral glucose-lowering drug completed the ADE questionnaire, the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF, and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). The ADE questionnaire assesses ADEs for any drug that the patient uses. Construct validity was assessed by testing whether patients reporting an ADE had a lower general quality of life and physical health than those not reporting an ADE, using Mann–Whitney U-tests and t-tests (significance level <0.05). For concurrent validity, we tested whether ADEs that patients associate with particular drugs in the ADE questionnaire are documented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) of those drugs, and whether patients who report an ADE with the use of metformin on the TSQM, mention metformin as a drug associated with an ADE on the ADE questionnaire. Agreement of 70% with the SPC was considered satisfactory. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for the comparison with the TSQM, where 70% was used as the cut-off level for sufficient concurrent validity. RESULTS: We included 135 patients (mean age 64 years, 35% women). Patients who reported an ADE (N = 37) had a lower general quality of life and physical health than those not reporting an ADE (P < 0.05). For 78 of the 146 reported ADEs (53%), patients mentioned at least 1 particular drug associated with the ADE. After clustering related ADEs, this resulted in 56 patient-reported ADE-drug associations. Of these, 41 (73%) were in agreement with information in the SPC. Finally, the questionnaire had a sensitivity of 38% and PPV of 79% for assessing ADEs associated with metformin. CONCLUSIONS: The construct validity of the patient-reported ADE questionnaire was sufficient for reporting any versus no ADE, but the concurrent validity was only partly demonstrated. Therefore, the questionnaire needs to be adapted before it can be used. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0103-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4243939
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42439392014-11-26 Construct and concurrent validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire: a cross-sectional study de Vries, Sieta T Haaijer-Ruskamp, Flora M de Zeeuw, Dick Denig, Petra Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Direct patient-reported information about adverse drug events (ADEs) is important since it adds to healthcare professional-reported information about the safety of drugs. Previously, we developed an instrument to assess patient-reported ADEs in research settings. The aim of this study is to assess the construct and concurrent validity of the questionnaire. METHODS: Patients on at least an oral glucose-lowering drug completed the ADE questionnaire, the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF, and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). The ADE questionnaire assesses ADEs for any drug that the patient uses. Construct validity was assessed by testing whether patients reporting an ADE had a lower general quality of life and physical health than those not reporting an ADE, using Mann–Whitney U-tests and t-tests (significance level <0.05). For concurrent validity, we tested whether ADEs that patients associate with particular drugs in the ADE questionnaire are documented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) of those drugs, and whether patients who report an ADE with the use of metformin on the TSQM, mention metformin as a drug associated with an ADE on the ADE questionnaire. Agreement of 70% with the SPC was considered satisfactory. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for the comparison with the TSQM, where 70% was used as the cut-off level for sufficient concurrent validity. RESULTS: We included 135 patients (mean age 64 years, 35% women). Patients who reported an ADE (N = 37) had a lower general quality of life and physical health than those not reporting an ADE (P < 0.05). For 78 of the 146 reported ADEs (53%), patients mentioned at least 1 particular drug associated with the ADE. After clustering related ADEs, this resulted in 56 patient-reported ADE-drug associations. Of these, 41 (73%) were in agreement with information in the SPC. Finally, the questionnaire had a sensitivity of 38% and PPV of 79% for assessing ADEs associated with metformin. CONCLUSIONS: The construct validity of the patient-reported ADE questionnaire was sufficient for reporting any versus no ADE, but the concurrent validity was only partly demonstrated. Therefore, the questionnaire needs to be adapted before it can be used. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0103-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4243939/ /pubmed/25115618 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0103-6 Text en © de Vries et al.; licensee Biomed Central 2014
spellingShingle Research
de Vries, Sieta T
Haaijer-Ruskamp, Flora M
de Zeeuw, Dick
Denig, Petra
Construct and concurrent validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire: a cross-sectional study
title Construct and concurrent validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire: a cross-sectional study
title_full Construct and concurrent validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr Construct and concurrent validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Construct and concurrent validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire: a cross-sectional study
title_short Construct and concurrent validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire: a cross-sectional study
title_sort construct and concurrent validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire: a cross-sectional study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243939/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25115618
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0103-6
work_keys_str_mv AT devriessietat constructandconcurrentvalidityofapatientreportedadversedrugeventquestionnaireacrosssectionalstudy
AT haaijerruskampfloram constructandconcurrentvalidityofapatientreportedadversedrugeventquestionnaireacrosssectionalstudy
AT dezeeuwdick constructandconcurrentvalidityofapatientreportedadversedrugeventquestionnaireacrosssectionalstudy
AT denigpetra constructandconcurrentvalidityofapatientreportedadversedrugeventquestionnaireacrosssectionalstudy