Optimising the computerised adaptive test to reliably reduce the burden of administering the CLEFT-Q: A Monte Carlo simulation study

Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on implementing patient-reported outcome measures in gender-affirming care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Patient and healthcare professional perspectives are needed to develop a gender-affirming care patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation plan. We aimed to identify top considerations relevant to gender-affirming care PROM implementation from patient and healthcare professional perspectives.

DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study conducted in the UK between January and April 2023 includes focus groups with a patient sample diverse in age and gender identity, and a healthcare professional sample diverse in age and role. Established methods in implementation science and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were used to create interview guides, and analyse data. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by two independent researchers. Patient and healthcare professional focus groups were conducted separately.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on PROM implementation were explored through focus groups and until data saturation.

RESULTS

A total of 7 virtual focus groups were conducted with 24 participants (14 patients, mean (SD) age, 43 (14.5); 10 healthcare professionals, mean (SD) age, 46 (11.3)). From patient perspectives, key barriers to PROM implementation were mistrust with PROMs, lack of accessibility, burden, and lack of communication on why PROMs are important and how they will help care. From healthcare professional perspectives, key barriers to PROM implementation were lack of accessibility, burden with PROM administration and scoring, costs of implementation (financial and time), and lack of communication on what PROMs are and how they benefit service provision.

CONCLUSION

Gender-affirming care PROM implementation must address: patient mistrust with PROMs, accessibility, communication on what PROMs are and how they can be used, reducing burden, and hybridised implementation. These factors may also be applicable to other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

Computerized adaptive testing for the patient evaluation measure (PEM) in patients undergoing cubital tunnel syndrome surgery

In outcome measures, item response theory (IRT) validation can deliver interval-scaled high-quality measurement that can be harnessed using computerized adaptive tests (CATs) to pose fewer questions to patients. We aimed to develop a CAT by developing an IRT model for the Patient Evaluation Measure (PEM) for patients undergoing cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) surgery. Nine hundred and seventy-nine completed PEM responses of patients with CuTS in the United Kingdom Hand Registry were used to develop and calibrate the CAT. Its performance was then evaluated in a simulated cohort of 1000 patients. The CAT reduced the original PEM length from ten to a median of two questions (range two to four), while preserving a high level of precision (median standard error of measurement of 0.27). The mean error between the CAT score and full-length score was 0.08%. A Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement with no signs of bias. The CAT version of the PEM can substantially reduce patient burden while enhancing construct validity by harnessing IRT for patients undergoing CuTS surgery.

Computerized adaptive testing of symptom severity: a registry-based study of 924 patients with trapeziometacarpal arthritis

We aimed to develop a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) version of the 11 item Patient Evaluation Measure (PEM), using an item response theory model. This model transformed the ordinal scores into ratio-interval scores. We obtained PEM responses from 924 patients with trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis to build a CAT model and tested its performance on a simulated cohort of 1000 PEM response sets. The CAT achieved high precision (median standard error or measurement 0.26) and reduced the number of questions needed for accurate scoring from 11 to median two. The CAT scores and item-response-theory-based 15-item PEM scores were similar, and a Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean score difference of 0.2 between the CAT and the full-length PEM scores on a scale from 0 to 100. We conclude that the CAT substantially reduced the burden of the PEM while also harnessing the validity of item response theory scoring.