Cargando…
A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective
BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration patient-reported outcome (PRO) guidance provides standards for PRO development, but these standards bring scientific and logistical challenges which can result in a lengthy and expensive instrument development process. Thus, more pragmatic methods are nee...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934934/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29757313 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0013-6 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration patient-reported outcome (PRO) guidance provides standards for PRO development, but these standards bring scientific and logistical challenges which can result in a lengthy and expensive instrument development process. Thus, more pragmatic methods are needed alongside traditional approaches. METHODS: Partnering with the National Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) Society, we compared three methods for eliciting patient experiences: 1) concept elicitation (CE) interviews with 12 individuals with AS, 2) “group concept mapping” (GCM) with 16 individuals with AS, 3) a social media review (SMR) of AS online chatrooms. Three conceptual models were developed and compared to explore data breadth/depth, as well as the practicalities and patient-centeredness. RESULTS: Overlap in concepts was observed between conceptual models; 35% of symptoms were identified by all methods. The SMR approach identified the most concepts (n = 23), followed by CE interviews (n = 18), and GCM (n = 15). Eight symptoms were uniquely identified using GCM and SMR. Eliciting in-depth data was challenging for SMR as detail was not always provided. Insight into the relationships between symptoms was obtained as a “concept map” in GCM, via effective probing within interviews, and through the subject’s descriptions in SMR. Practical investment varied; CE interviews were the most resource intensive, whereas SMR was the least. Individuals in GCM and CE interviews reported high engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Primary CE interviews achieved the greatest depth in conceptual understanding of patient experience; however, novel methods (GCM, SMR) provide complementary approaches for identifying measurement concepts. Each method has strengths and weaknesses and should be selected based on specific research objectives. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-017-0013-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
---|