Saving time and effort: Best practice for adapting existing patient-reported outcome measures in hepatology

被引:6
作者
Alrubaiy, Laith [1 ]
Hutchings, Hayley A. [2 ]
Hughes, Sarah E. [3 ,4 ]
Dobbs, Thomas [5 ]
机构
[1] St Marks Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol, London HA1 3UJ, England
[2] Swansea Univ Med Sch, Inst Life Sci 2, Singleton Pk, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales
[3] Swansea Univ, Swansea Univ Med Sch, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales
[4] Univ Birmingham, Inst Appl Hlth Res, Ctr Patient Reported Outcome Res, Birmingham B15 2TT, England
[5] Swansea Univ, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales
关键词
Patient reported outcome measures; Adaptation; Content validation; Hepatology; Patient reported outcomes; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; CLASSICAL TEST THEORY; TASK-FORCE; CULTURAL-ADAPTATION; CONTENT VALIDITY; CARE; TRANSLATION; INSTRUMENT; PRINCIPLES; GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.4254/wjh.v14.i5.896
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
It is increasingly recognised that collecting patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is an important part of healthcare and should be considered alongside traditional clinical assessments. As part of a more holistic view of healthcare provision, there has been an increased drive to implement PROM collection as part of routine clinical care in hepatology. This drive has resulted in an increase in the number of PROMs currently developed to be used in various liver conditions. However, the development and validation of a new PROM is time-consuming and costly. Therefore, before deciding to develop a new PROM, researchers should consider identifying existing PROMs to assess their appropriateness and, if necessary, make adaptations to existing PROMs to ensure their rigour when used with the target population. Little is written in the literature on how to identify and adapt the existing PROMs in hepatology. This article aims to provide a summary of the current literature and guidance regarding identifying and adapting existing PROMs in clinical practice.
引用
收藏
页码:896 / 910
页数:16
相关论文
共 70 条
[1]  
Acaster S., DESIGN SELECTION PAT
[2]   Including the patient voice in the development and implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials [J].
Addario, Bonnie ;
Geissler, Jan ;
Horn, Marcia K. ;
Krebs, Linda U. ;
Maskens, Deborah ;
Oliver, Kathy ;
Plate, Ananda ;
Schwartz, Erin ;
Willmarth, Nicole .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2020, 23 (01) :41-51
[3]   Assessing patient reported outcome measures: A practical guide for gastroenterologists [J].
Alrubaiy, Laith ;
Hutchings, Hayley A. ;
Williams, John G. .
UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL, 2014, 2 (06) :463-470
[4]   Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: Need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature [J].
Anatchkova M. ;
Donelson S.M. ;
Skalicky A.M. ;
McHorney C.A. ;
Jagun D. ;
Whiteley J. .
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2 (1)
[5]  
[Anonymous], Process of translation and adaptation of instruments
[6]  
Arksey H., 2005, INT J SOC RES METHOD, V8, P19, DOI [DOI 10.1080/1364557032000119616, 10.1080/1364557032000119616]
[7]   'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review [J].
Armstrong, Rebecca ;
Hall, Belinda J. ;
Doyle, Jodie ;
Waters, Elizabeth .
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2011, 33 (01) :147-150
[8]   EAPC White Paper on outcome measurement in palliative care: Improving practice, attaining outcomes and delivering quality services - Recommendations from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) Task Force on Outcome Measurement [J].
Bausewein, Claudia ;
Daveson, Barbara A. ;
Currow, David C. ;
Downing, Julia ;
Deliens, Luc ;
Radbruch, Lukas ;
Defilippi, Kath ;
Lopes Ferreira, Pedro ;
Costantini, Massimo ;
Harding, Richard ;
Higginson, Irene J. .
PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2016, 30 (01) :6-22
[9]   Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures [J].
Beaton, DE ;
Bombardier, C ;
Guillemin, F ;
Ferraz, MB .
SPINE, 2000, 25 (24) :3186-3191
[10]   Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare [J].
Black, Nick .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 346