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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bharadia, Trishna, Vandercappellen, Jo, Chitnis, Tanuja, Eelen, Piet, Bauer, Birgit, Brichetto, Giampaolo, Lloyd, Andrew, Schmidt, Hollie, King, Miriam, Fitzgerald, Jennifer, Hach, Thomas, Hobart, Jeremy
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