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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Humphrey, Louise, Willgoss, Thomas, Trigg, Andrew, Meysner, Stephanie, Kane, Mary, Dickinson, Sally, Kitchen, Helen
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
_version_ 1783320212388446208
author Humphrey, Louise
Willgoss, Thomas
Trigg, Andrew
Meysner, Stephanie
Kane, Mary
Dickinson, Sally
Kitchen, Helen
author_facet Humphrey, Louise
Willgoss, Thomas
Trigg, Andrew
Meysner, Stephanie
Kane, Mary
Dickinson, Sally
Kitchen, Helen
author_sort Humphrey, Louise
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5934934
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59349342018-05-09 A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective Humphrey, Louise Willgoss, Thomas Trigg, Andrew Meysner, Stephanie Kane, Mary Dickinson, Sally Kitchen, Helen J Patient Rep Outcomes Research 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. Springer International Publishing 2017-12-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5934934/ /pubmed/29757313 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0013-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Humphrey, Louise
Willgoss, Thomas
Trigg, Andrew
Meysner, Stephanie
Kane, Mary
Dickinson, Sally
Kitchen, Helen
A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective
title A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective
title_full A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective
title_fullStr A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective
title_short A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective
title_sort comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective
topic Research
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT humphreylouise acomparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT willgossthomas acomparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT triggandrew acomparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT meysnerstephanie acomparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT kanemary acomparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT dickinsonsally acomparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT kitchenhelen acomparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT humphreylouise comparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT willgossthomas comparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT triggandrew comparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT meysnerstephanie comparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT kanemary comparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT dickinsonsally comparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective
AT kitchenhelen comparisonofthreemethodstogenerateaconceptualunderstandingofadiseasebasedonthepatientsperspective