Cargando…

Application of a Bayesian graded response model to characterize areas of disagreement between clinician and patient grading of symptomatic adverse events

BACKGROUND: Traditional concordance metrics have shortcomings based on dataset characteristics (e.g., multiple attributes rated, missing data); therefore it is necessary to explore supplemental approaches to quantifying agreement between independent assessments. The purpose of this methodological pa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Atkinson, Thomas M., Reeve, Bryce B., Dueck, Amylou C., Bennett, Antonia V., Mendoza, Tito R., Rogak, Lauren J., Basch, Ethan, Li, Yuelin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30515599
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0086-x
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Traditional concordance metrics have shortcomings based on dataset characteristics (e.g., multiple attributes rated, missing data); therefore it is necessary to explore supplemental approaches to quantifying agreement between independent assessments. The purpose of this methodological paper is to apply an Item Response Theory (IRT) -based framework to an existing dataset that included unidimensional clinician and multiple attribute patient ratings of symptomatic adverse events (AEs), and explore the utility of this method in patient-reported outcome (PRO) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) research. METHODS: Data were derived from a National Cancer Institute-sponsored study examining the validity of a measurement system (PRO-CTCAE) for patient self-reporting of AEs in cancer patients receiving treatment (N = 940). AEs included 13 multiple attribute patient-reported symptoms that had corresponding unidimensional clinician AE grades. A Bayesian IRT Model was fitted to calculate the latent grading thresholds between raters. The posterior mean values of the model-fitted item responses were calculated to represent model-based AE grades obtained from patients and clinicians. RESULTS: Model-based AE grades showed a general pattern of clinician underestimation relative to patient-graded AEs. However, the magnitude of clinician underestimation was associated with AE severity, such that clinicians’ underestimation was more pronounced for moderate/very severe model-estimated AEs, and less so with mild AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The Bayesian IRT approach reconciles multiple symptom attributes and elaborates on the patterns of clinician-patient non-concordance beyond that provided by traditional metrics. This IRT-based technique may be used as a supplemental tool to detect and characterize nuanced differences in patient-, clinician-, and proxy-based ratings of HRQOL and patient-centered outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01031641. Registered 1 December 2009.