Cargando…
Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient‐oriented questionnaires
BACKGROUND: Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely recognized as important tools for achieving a patient‐centred approach in health research. While PROMs are subject to several stages of validation during development, even questionnaires with robust psychometric properties may challeng...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9615088/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34668630 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13373 |
_version_ | 1784820342290644992 |
---|---|
author | Hudon, Catherine Danish, Alya Lambert, Mireille Howse, Dana Cassidy, Monique Dumont‐Samson, Olivier Porter, Judy Rubenstein, Donna Sabourin, Véronique Doucet, Shelley Ramsden, Vivian R. Bisson, Mathieu Schwarz, Charlotte Chouinard, Maud‐Christine |
author_facet | Hudon, Catherine Danish, Alya Lambert, Mireille Howse, Dana Cassidy, Monique Dumont‐Samson, Olivier Porter, Judy Rubenstein, Donna Sabourin, Véronique Doucet, Shelley Ramsden, Vivian R. Bisson, Mathieu Schwarz, Charlotte Chouinard, Maud‐Christine |
author_sort | Hudon, Catherine |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely recognized as important tools for achieving a patient‐centred approach in health research. While PROMs are subject to several stages of validation during development, even questionnaires with robust psychometric properties may challenge patient comfort and understanding. AIM: Building on the experience of patient engagement in the PriCARE research programme, this paper outlines the team's response to concerns raised by patient partners regarding the administration of the questionnaire. METHODS: Based on a participatory action research design and the patient engagement framework in the Strategy for Patient‐Oriented Research of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, PriCARE team members worked together to discuss concerns, review the questionnaires and come up with solutions. Data were collected through participant observation of team meetings. RESULTS: This paper demonstrates how patient partners were engaged in PriCARE and integrated into the programme's governance structure, focusing on the challenges that they raised regarding the questionnaires and how these were addressed by PriCARE team members in a six‐step approach: (1) Recognizing patient partner concerns, discussing concerns and reframing the challenges; (2) Detailing and sharing evidence of the validity of the questionnaires; (3) Evaluating potential solutions; (4) Searching the literature for guidelines; (5) Creating guidelines; and (6) Sharing and refining guidelines. CONCLUSION: This six‐step approach demonstrates how research teams can integrate patient partners as equal members, develop meaningful collaboration through recognition of individual experiences and expertise and ensure that the patient perspective is taken into consideration in research and healthcare innovation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: All patient partners from the PriCARE programme were actively involved in the six‐step approach. They were also involved in the preparation of the manuscript. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9615088 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96150882022-10-31 Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient‐oriented questionnaires Hudon, Catherine Danish, Alya Lambert, Mireille Howse, Dana Cassidy, Monique Dumont‐Samson, Olivier Porter, Judy Rubenstein, Donna Sabourin, Véronique Doucet, Shelley Ramsden, Vivian R. Bisson, Mathieu Schwarz, Charlotte Chouinard, Maud‐Christine Health Expect Vulnerable Populations Special Articles BACKGROUND: Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely recognized as important tools for achieving a patient‐centred approach in health research. While PROMs are subject to several stages of validation during development, even questionnaires with robust psychometric properties may challenge patient comfort and understanding. AIM: Building on the experience of patient engagement in the PriCARE research programme, this paper outlines the team's response to concerns raised by patient partners regarding the administration of the questionnaire. METHODS: Based on a participatory action research design and the patient engagement framework in the Strategy for Patient‐Oriented Research of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, PriCARE team members worked together to discuss concerns, review the questionnaires and come up with solutions. Data were collected through participant observation of team meetings. RESULTS: This paper demonstrates how patient partners were engaged in PriCARE and integrated into the programme's governance structure, focusing on the challenges that they raised regarding the questionnaires and how these were addressed by PriCARE team members in a six‐step approach: (1) Recognizing patient partner concerns, discussing concerns and reframing the challenges; (2) Detailing and sharing evidence of the validity of the questionnaires; (3) Evaluating potential solutions; (4) Searching the literature for guidelines; (5) Creating guidelines; and (6) Sharing and refining guidelines. CONCLUSION: This six‐step approach demonstrates how research teams can integrate patient partners as equal members, develop meaningful collaboration through recognition of individual experiences and expertise and ensure that the patient perspective is taken into consideration in research and healthcare innovation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: All patient partners from the PriCARE programme were actively involved in the six‐step approach. They were also involved in the preparation of the manuscript. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-10-20 2022-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9615088/ /pubmed/34668630 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13373 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Vulnerable Populations Special Articles Hudon, Catherine Danish, Alya Lambert, Mireille Howse, Dana Cassidy, Monique Dumont‐Samson, Olivier Porter, Judy Rubenstein, Donna Sabourin, Véronique Doucet, Shelley Ramsden, Vivian R. Bisson, Mathieu Schwarz, Charlotte Chouinard, Maud‐Christine Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient‐oriented questionnaires |
title | Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient‐oriented questionnaires |
title_full | Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient‐oriented questionnaires |
title_fullStr | Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient‐oriented questionnaires |
title_full_unstemmed | Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient‐oriented questionnaires |
title_short | Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient‐oriented questionnaires |
title_sort | reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: guidelines to patient‐oriented questionnaires |
topic | Vulnerable Populations Special Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9615088/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34668630 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13373 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hudoncatherine reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT danishalya reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT lambertmireille reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT howsedana reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT cassidymonique reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT dumontsamsonolivier reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT porterjudy reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT rubensteindonna reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT sabourinveronique reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT doucetshelley reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT ramsdenvivianr reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT bissonmathieu reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT schwarzcharlotte reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires AT chouinardmaudchristine reconcilingvalidityandchallengesofpatientcomfortandunderstandingguidelinestopatientorientedquestionnaires |