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 |
_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 |