Cargando…
Patient-reported outcome measures in MS: Do development processes and patient involvement support valid quantification of clinically important variables?
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are widely measured in multiple sclerosis (MS) studies. However, the quality of instrument development processes varies, raising concerns about the meaningfulness of associated data. OBJECTIVES: To review the development of selected PROs commonly used in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9228659/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35755007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20552173221105642 |
_version_ | 1784734534984531968 |
---|---|
author | Bharadia, Trishna Vandercappellen, Jo Chitnis, Tanuja Eelen, Piet Bauer, Birgit Brichetto, Giampaolo Lloyd, Andrew Schmidt, Hollie King, Miriam Fitzgerald, Jennifer Hach, Thomas Hobart, Jeremy |
author_facet | Bharadia, Trishna Vandercappellen, Jo Chitnis, Tanuja Eelen, Piet Bauer, Birgit Brichetto, Giampaolo Lloyd, Andrew Schmidt, Hollie King, Miriam Fitzgerald, Jennifer Hach, Thomas Hobart, Jeremy |
author_sort | Bharadia, Trishna |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are widely measured in multiple sclerosis (MS) studies. However, the quality of instrument development processes varies, raising concerns about the meaningfulness of associated data. OBJECTIVES: To review the development of selected PROs commonly used in MS studies, including definitions of the concepts measured, use of conceptual frameworks, and degree of input from people living with MS (PlwMS). To gain insights and recommendations from PlwMS on their experience with these PROs. METHODS: We assessed 6 PROs (FSIQ-RMS, modified-FIS, MSQoL-54, Leeds 8-item MSQoL, MSIS-29 and EQ-5D) for alignment with regulatory and scientific requirements on PRO structure/development. PlwMS evaluated the degree to which the PROs reflect disease aspects they perceive important. RESULTS: Definitions, clarifications and conceptualisations of the measurement variables were often lacking. PlwMS were variably involved in PRO development. Ethnic diversity was rarely documented. PlwMS identified individualisation, ease of understanding, time burden, and mode of administration as factors affecting PRO usability. CONCLUSIONS: To date, the PRO development process has consistently lacked clear definitions of concepts of interest, use of conceptual frameworks and patient involvement, thereby compromising the validity of data they generate. PRO instrument development must be conducted more robustly to maximise the value of pivotal clinical trials. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9228659 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92286592022-06-25 Patient-reported outcome measures in MS: Do development processes and patient involvement support valid quantification of clinically important variables? Bharadia, Trishna Vandercappellen, Jo Chitnis, Tanuja Eelen, Piet Bauer, Birgit Brichetto, Giampaolo Lloyd, Andrew Schmidt, Hollie King, Miriam Fitzgerald, Jennifer Hach, Thomas Hobart, Jeremy Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are widely measured in multiple sclerosis (MS) studies. However, the quality of instrument development processes varies, raising concerns about the meaningfulness of associated data. OBJECTIVES: To review the development of selected PROs commonly used in MS studies, including definitions of the concepts measured, use of conceptual frameworks, and degree of input from people living with MS (PlwMS). To gain insights and recommendations from PlwMS on their experience with these PROs. METHODS: We assessed 6 PROs (FSIQ-RMS, modified-FIS, MSQoL-54, Leeds 8-item MSQoL, MSIS-29 and EQ-5D) for alignment with regulatory and scientific requirements on PRO structure/development. PlwMS evaluated the degree to which the PROs reflect disease aspects they perceive important. RESULTS: Definitions, clarifications and conceptualisations of the measurement variables were often lacking. PlwMS were variably involved in PRO development. Ethnic diversity was rarely documented. PlwMS identified individualisation, ease of understanding, time burden, and mode of administration as factors affecting PRO usability. CONCLUSIONS: To date, the PRO development process has consistently lacked clear definitions of concepts of interest, use of conceptual frameworks and patient involvement, thereby compromising the validity of data they generate. PRO instrument development must be conducted more robustly to maximise the value of pivotal clinical trials. SAGE Publications 2022-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9228659/ /pubmed/35755007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20552173221105642 Text en © The Author(s), 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Article Bharadia, Trishna Vandercappellen, Jo Chitnis, Tanuja Eelen, Piet Bauer, Birgit Brichetto, Giampaolo Lloyd, Andrew Schmidt, Hollie King, Miriam Fitzgerald, Jennifer Hach, Thomas Hobart, Jeremy Patient-reported outcome measures in MS: Do development processes and patient involvement support valid quantification of clinically important variables? |
title | Patient-reported outcome measures in MS: Do development processes and patient involvement support valid quantification of clinically important variables? |
title_full | Patient-reported outcome measures in MS: Do development processes and patient involvement support valid quantification of clinically important variables? |
title_fullStr | Patient-reported outcome measures in MS: Do development processes and patient involvement support valid quantification of clinically important variables? |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient-reported outcome measures in MS: Do development processes and patient involvement support valid quantification of clinically important variables? |
title_short | Patient-reported outcome measures in MS: Do development processes and patient involvement support valid quantification of clinically important variables? |
title_sort | patient-reported outcome measures in ms: do development processes and patient involvement support valid quantification of clinically important variables? |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9228659/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35755007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20552173221105642 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bharadiatrishna patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT vandercappellenjo patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT chitnistanuja patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT eelenpiet patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT bauerbirgit patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT brichettogiampaolo patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT lloydandrew patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT schmidthollie patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT kingmiriam patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT fitzgeraldjennifer patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT hachthomas patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables AT hobartjeremy patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinmsdodevelopmentprocessesandpatientinvolvementsupportvalidquantificationofclinicallyimportantvariables |