Patient value: its nature, measurement, and role in real world evidence studies and outcomes-based reimbursement

Investigating the Relationship between Home Parenteral Support and Needs-Based Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Intestinal Failure: A National Multi-Centre Longitudinal Cohort Study

Home parenteral support (HPS) is an essential but potentially burdensome treatment that can affect quality of life (QoL). The aims of this longitudinal study were to understand whether any changes in HPS over time were associated with QoL. The Parenteral Nutrition Impact Questionnaire (PNIQ) was used, and data were collected on HPS prescribed at three time points. Data were analysed using multi-level mixed regression models presented as effect size and were adjusted for confounders. Study recruited 572 participants from 15 sites. Of these, 201 and 145 completed surveys at second and third time-points, respectively. PNIQ score was out of 20 with a higher score indicating poorer QoL. Any reduction in HPS infusions per week was associated with an improved PNIQ score of -1.10 (95% CI -2.17, -0.02) unadjusted and -1.34 (95% CI -2.45, -0.24) adjusted. Per day change to the number of infusions per week was associated with a change in the PNIQ score of 0.32 (95% CI -0.15, 0.80) unadjusted and 0.34 (95% CI -0.17, 0.85) adjusted. This is the largest national study to demonstrate improvements in QoL associated with HPS reduction over time using an HPS-specific and patient-centric tool, adding unique data for use of therapies in intestinal failure.

Demographics and medical comorbidities among hospitalized patients with Prader-Willi Syndrome: A National Inpatient Sample analysis

Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS) is a multi-system genetic disorder characterized by hyperphagia and a range of medical complications. While register and cohort studies have explored the natural course of the syndrome, there is little nationally-representative data. In this study the National Inpatient Sample, a de-identified all-payors database of acute care hospital discharges in the United States, was queried for patients discharged with a diagnosis of PWS in 2019. Hospitalizations involving PWS were compared to hospitalizations without a PWS diagnosis matched based on demographic and hospital factors. In total, 540 hospitalizations (95% CI: 513-567) included a diagnosis of PWS. Median age at time of admission was 22 years, with an interquartile range of 6.3-37.8 years. Respiratory conditions accounted for 110 (20.4%) of primary discharge diagnoses, with infectious conditions for 70 (13.0%) and digestive conditions for 65 (12.0%). Hospitalizations involving PWS were significantly more likely to involve respiratory failure (OR 5.49; 95% CI 3.86-7.80), septicemia (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.97-3.96), or intestinal obstruction and ileus (OR 6.29; 95% CI 3.70-10.7) compared to matched hospitalizations without PWS. Obesity was diagnosed in 230 PWS hospitalizations (42.6%; OR 3.86, 95% CI 3.17-4.72 relative to non-PWS hospitalizations). These results point to an ongoing need for the improved diagnosis and treatment of PWS complications, and highlight the importance of specific billing codes for rare diseases to enhance the collection of real world evidence.

The economic imperatives for technology enabled wellness centered healthcare

A 2020 World Health Organization report underscored the impact of rising healthcare spending globally and questioned the long-term economic sustainability of current funding models. Increases in costs associated with care of late-stage irreversible diseases and the increasing prevalence of debilitating neurodegenerative disorders, coupled with increases in life expectancy are likely to overload the healthcare systems in many nations within the next decade if not addressed. One option for sustainability of the healthcare system is a change in emphasis from illness to wellness centered care. An attractive model is the P4 (Predictive, Preventative, Personalized and Participatory) medicine approach. Recent advances in connected health technology can help accelerate this transition; they offer prediction, diagnosis, and monitoring of health-related parameters. We explain how to integrate such technologies with conventional approaches and guide public health policy toward wellness-based care models and strategies to relieve the escalating economic burdens of managed care.

Real-world evidence of age-independent electroconvulsive therapy efficacy: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for depressive disorders and approved for use in adolescents and adults, but it is unclear whether efficacy or cognitive side effect burden differs with age or if effectiveness in usual clinical practice matches that in prospective studies. We examined the effects of ECT on depression and cognition in a large clinical cohort.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients ages 16 and older receiving ECT between 2011 and 2020 and who were evaluated with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale-24 (BASIS-24), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline and after treatment #10.

RESULTS

Among 1698 patients, ECT was associated with a decrease in depression symptoms (QIDS reduction from 17.1 ± 4.9 to 10.1 ± 5.2) and improvement in self-reported mental health (BASIS-24 scores improved from 1.92 ± 0.55 to 1.17 ± 0.60). There was a reduction in MoCA scores from 25.8 ± 3.1 to 25.4 ± 3.1. In multivariate models, age was not associated with a differential QIDS or BASIS-24 response, but older age was associated with a lesser reduction in MoCA.

CONCLUSION

Among 1698 patients aged 16 and older, ECT was associated with improvement in depression and overall self-reported mental health, with a slight decrease in cognition. Age was not associated with changes in efficacy, but older age was associated with a lesser cognitive change as measured by the MoCA. These results provide normative data of real-world effectiveness of ECT, and add further support to its utility in patients with severe psychiatric illness.

Peter Rabbit is a Badger in Disguise: Deconstructing the Belief System of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review in Health Technology Assessment

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), a Boston-based consulting group, has seen itself as the lead organization in the US for evaluating pharmaceuticals and, at product launch, making recommendations for pricing and access. Previous commentaries in Innovations in Pharmacy have made the case that the ICER analytical framework is nonsensical. It abandons the standards of normal science in favor of inventing evidence through unsupported assertions regarding measurement properties and lifetime assumption driven simulations. It has been labeled pseudoscience. Yet ICER persists in its belief that all preference scales have ratio properties. ICER believes it can disregard these standards, notably in respect of the axioms of fundamental evidence, and continue its technology assessment activities. Challenging a belief system is not undertaken lightly, although in the case of ICER the belief system is built on such shaky foundations that the effort seems almost superfluous. This deeply held belief, shared apparently by the majority of health economists according to ICER, that all preference scores have ratio properties with a true zero, is easily overturned: if it has ratio properties how is it that preferences scores have been known for over 30 years to recognize health states worse than death? In other words, they can have negative preferences. Recognizing this manifest contradiction is important because it brings into relief the wider belief system of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) who share the same mythical certainties. A key issue is one of cultural relativity: can we accept with equanimity the parallel existence of two belief systems in health technology assessment when one is clearly nonsense? The answer proposed here is clearly no; although unfortunately the blowback by ICER and ISPOR will ensure the survival at least in the near term of their unfortunate meme.

Fundamental Outcome Measurement: Selecting Patient Reported Outcome Instruments and Interpreting the Data they Produce

Over the past 40 years literally thousands of generic and disease specific patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments have been developed. While most were developed for a specific study and were never used again, there is still the question of how manufacturers and others should select a PRO instrument for a study. These studies may be clinical pivotal trials or observational tracking studies to support therapy response. Formulary committees also need to be able to interpret PRO data to make decisions about whether to accept claims for therapy response. It is possible to argue that the many different approaches to outcome measurement have resulted from the lack of agreed methodologies. However, a more likely explanation is that the authors have failed to apply the axioms of fundamental measurement when creating their measures. The result is a plethora of ordinal PRO instruments that inform little about the impact of interventions. Clinical trials rarely report PRO data. Where they do, analyses are generally restricted to (for example) changes in the experimental group's scores. Comparisons between the treatment and placebo groups or between active groups are infrequently reported, most likely due to the failure of the instrument to show differences or changes in outcome. This is unfortunate as it means no assessment is made of the value that patients gain from the intervention. This commentary is intended to make researchers and formulary committees aware of the issues that need to be addressed when selecting PRO instruments for a study or evaluating publications and claims for therapy response. The latter is crucial as reported data influence the selection of medicines and healthcare products. In the latter case a particular concern is with PRO claims embedded in simulation models.

Fundamental Measurement: The Need Fulfilment Quality of Life (N-QOL) Measure

The quality adjusted life year (QALY) has serious problems related to its failure to adhere to measurement theory. If a QALY is to be meaningful, the utility score that translates time spent to an equivalent time spent in so-called perfect health must have ratio properties (i.e., it must support multiplication). Multiattribute utility scores (e.g. those generated by the EQ-5D-5L) fail to meet this standard. The multiattribute instruments produce ordinal scores that lack a true zero and they generate negative values. The manifest deficiencies of multiattribute utility instruments render them unfit, not only as a measure of therapy response but also in generating QALY claims. After 30 years of belief in their use, utilities and QALYs are clearly analytical dead ends.

The purpose of this commentary is to demonstrate a coherent way forward in health technology assessment by focusing, not on clinical attributes as surrogates for quality of life, but on measures that are based on a conceptual model describing patient value in terms of need-fulfilment. Building on an extensive, yet often overlooked literature, need-based measures that fit Rasch Measurement Theory criteria are converted from ordinal scores to interval scores to evaluate response to therapy. These measures meet the requirements of single attribute fundamental measurement which is the standard in the physical sciences. It is proposed that a translation from a Rasch interval scale (defined by logits) can be transformed to a bounded ratio scale. Need based Quality of Life (N-QOL) scales bounded by 0 (where no needs are fulfilled) to 1 (where all needs are fulfilled) form such scales. The N-QOL supports the full range of arithmetic operations. Multiattribute utilities and mathematically invalid QALYs can be put to one side as unfortunate historical curiosities in favor of a disease or target population specific N-QOL scale. Such a scale has the required properties to evaluate disease specific response to therapy This can also support N-QOL adjusted life years with a need- fulfillment life year (NALY) metric with ratio properties.

Setting and maintaining standards for patient-reported outcome measures: can we rely on the COSMIN checklists?

As test-developers we have often been troubled by published reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Too often minor issues are judged important while other reviews exclude the best measures available. Perhaps this led several groups to make recommendations for evaluating the quality of PROMs. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist is the latest set of recommendations. While reviewing the COSMIN literature and reviews conducted using their recommendations several concerns became apparent. The checklist is not evidence-based, relying on the opinion of researchers experienced in health-related quality of life. PROMs measuring other types of outcomes are inadequately covered by the checklist. COSMIN choose to focus on Classical Test Theory and the checklists are not appropriate for use with PROMs developed using modern measurement. Such an approach only obstructs progress in the field of outcome measurement. The retrospective nature of the evaluations also penalizes new PROMs. While the checklists imply that composite, ordinal level measurement is acceptable, crucial aspects of instrument development and quality are excluded. Reviews based on the COSMIN checklist produce contradictory conclusions and fail to provide evidence to support the recommendations. These problems suggest that the checklists themselves lack reliability and validity. It is also clear that several reviewers lack the expertise to apply the checklists. Researchers require a good grounding in instrument development and psychometrics to produce quality reviews. The science of modern PROM development is still in an early phase. Few available PROMs have sufficient quality, limiting the need for complex reviews. Standards need to be agreed for high quality outcome measurement. The issue is who should set these standards? Most published reviews merely scratch the surface and lack essential detail. All reviews of PROMs should be treated with caution, irrespective of whether the COSMIN checklist was employed.

Value Assessment, Real World Evidence and Fundamental Measurement: Version 3.0 of the Minnesota Formulary Submission Guidelines

This latest version of the Minnesota guidelines is intended to reassert the application of the standards of normal science in formulary submissions for new and existing pharmaceutical products and devices. This represents a paradigm shift from the existing value assessment standards which are focused on imaginary or I-QALY modeling of lifetime claims. The proposed new paradigm rejects this as pseudoscience; a failure to recognize the standards of normal science, in particular a failure to recognize the constraints of fundamental measurement. As a result, current health technology assessment is dominated by value assessments that create claims that are neither credible, nor empirically evaluable or replicable. The fatal flaw is the failure to recognize that QALYS are an impossible mathematical construct (hence the term I-QALY). The proposed paradigm recognizes that if there are claims for product value then, regardless of whether the claim is for clinical impact, quality of life or resource utilization, all claims must be empirically evaluable. If not, then they should be rejected. The Minnesota guidelines propose a new evidence based approach to formulary assessment, together with ongoing disease area and therapeutic class reviews. The focus is on claims that are specific to target patient populations that are claims for specific attributes and are consistent with the axioms of fundamental measurement. Manufacturers are asked to support claims assessment through protocols detailing the evidence base for claims assessment, the timelines for those assessments and the process by which claims assessments are reported back to formulary committees. Value assessment leads naturally to value contracting, revisiting provisional prices as new information is discovered and delivered to the formulary committee.

The development of the PlexiQoL: A patient-reported outcome measure for adults with neurofibromatosis type 1-associated plexiform neurofibromas

Background

To develop and validate a patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measure of quality of life (QoL), specific to patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1)‐associated plexiform neurofibromas (pNFs), suitable for use in clinical efficacy trials. The study was conducted in parallel in the UK and US.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients to generate questionnaire content. Face and content validity of the draft scale was assessed by cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs). A postal validation survey was conducted to identify the final version of the questionnaire (the PlexiQoL), establish its unidimensionality, and assess its psychometric properties.

Results

Thematic analysis was performed on 42 interview transcripts. Thirty‐one CDIs revealed that patients found the draft scale to be comprehensible, relevant, and easy to complete. The postal validation survey was completed by 273 patients. Rasch analysis identified an 18‐item unidimensional scale that showed excellent internal consistency, reproducibility, and sensitivity to differences in patient‐perceived pNF severity, general health, and the use of pain medication.

Conclusions

The PlexiQoL is the first disease‐specific PRO assessing the ability of adults with NF‐1 associated pNFs to meet their basic human needs. Clinical trials are planned to assess the sensitivity to change of the PlexiQoL in people undergoing treatment for pNFs.

Value Assessment in Cystic Fibrosis: ICER's Rejection of the Axioms of Fundamental Measurement

One of the features of the ICER stakeholder involvement in the development of ICER evidence reports is the ability for public comment. Unfortunately, and this may just a miscommunication, the replies from ICER to public comments frequently miss the point or fail to provide backup for their claims. The purpose of this commentary is to review ICER's responses to public comments by the author on the just released final evidence report on cystic fibrosis. The message is quite simple: the ICER value assessment framework lacks credibility. It fails to meet the standards of normal science. This is seen in ICERs apparent ignorance or rejection of the axioms of fundamental measurement which point quite clearly to the mathematical impossibility of creating QALYs from generic multiattribute utility scores. The ICER report also fails standards by creating a model from prior assumptions; there is no logical basis for constructing a value assessment claim. Either ICER should withdraw its value claims or admit the dubious basis on which the model is built, as a duty to its readership.

Nonsense on Stilts - Part 1: The ICER 2020-2023 Value Assessment Framework for Constructing Imaginary Worlds

Previous commentaries in the Formulary Evaluation section of INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy have pointed to the lack of credibility in modeled claims for cost-effectiveness and associated recommendations for pricing and access by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). The principal objection to ICER reports has been that their modeled claims fail the standards of normal science: they are best seen as pseudoscience. The purpose of this latest commentary is to provide a critique of the recently released ICER 2020 Value Assessment Framework (VAF). Although ICER has taken upon itself the pole position in health technology assessments and recommendations for product pricing in the US health care system, the incremental, lifetime cost-per-QALY modeling methodology should not be taken seriously. The creation of imaginary modeled worlds, built entirely from assumption, fails the demarcation test between science and pseudoscience. The ICER evidence reports are best seen as the health technology assessment equivalent of 'intelligent design' in counterpoint to 'natural selection'. It is surprising, therefore, that health care decision makers should take ICER's recommendations seriously as providing 'approximate information' for formulary decision making. What is not appreciated is that the claims made by ICER lack credibility, are impossible to evaluate and lack the ability to be replicated across treatment settings. Indeed, the models presented under the guise of a 'state of the art' value assessment were never intended to support evaluable claims. We have no idea and will never know if they are right or if they are wrong. ICER's position becomes even more untenable once the models presented are assessed in detail. Without in any way supporting the ICER methodology, it is worth noting that all too often ICER's claims for incremental QALYs in specific models are based upon what appears to be, from the limited evidence presented, a casual and ad hoc assemblage of utility scores from diverse constructs. This is a critical weakness given the role attributed by ICER to the modeled cost-per-QALY claims as central to ICERs imaginary value assessment. ICER also overlooks the fact that the utility scores it captures from the literature to populate its imaginary reference case world lack objectivity. They are ordinal rather than interval measures. To apply these manifest scores to time spent in a disease stage and then aggregate these over different disease stages is nonsensical. The critical issue is one of instrument development. The case made here is for the application of Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) to construct a unidimensional instrument with interval properties, in this case from the needs fulfillment construct of quality of life (QoL). Unless an instrument meets RMT standards in its development, the logic of Rasch modeling to achieve fundamental measurement standards means that other scales are, by definition, ordinal. It is absurd to 'assume' they are interval. RMT is designed to create instruments to evaluate change and test hypotheses. In the absence of instruments that have RMT properties, the cost-per-QALY reference case modelling meme collapses. It is an analytical dead end. If we are to support a meaningful scientific program to discover new facts to support health care delivery and improve the lives of patients, caregivers and their families, then ICER should be put to one side.

More Unnecessary Imaginary Worlds - Part 1: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Evidence Report on Janus Kinase (JAK) Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Previous commentaries in the Formulary Evaluation section of INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy have pointed to the lack of credibility in modeled claims for cost-effectiveness and associated recommendations for pricing by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). The principal objection to ICER reports has been that their modeled claims fail the standards of normal science: they are best seen as pseudoscience. The purpose of this latest commentary is to consider the recently released ICER evidence report for Janus Kinase (JAK) Inhibitors. As ICER continues, in the case of JAK Inhibitors, to apply its modeled cost utility framework with consequent recommendations for pricing adjustments, these recommendations also lack credibility. In contrast with previous ICER evidence reports, the present report adopts only a 12-month timeframe, one due, in large part, to ICER being unable to justify assumptions to drive its construction of imaginary worlds beyond 12 months. This commentary emphasizesagain, why the ICER methodology fails to meet the standards of normal science. Claims made by ICER for the competing JAK Inhibitor therapies lack credibility, are impossible to evaluate, let alone replicate across treatment settings. Even so, it is important to examine a number of key elements in the ICER invention of the 12-month JAK Inhibitor imaginary world. While this does not imply any degree of acceptance of the ICER methodology, one element that merits particular attention is thefailure of the ICER modeling to meet logically defensible measurement standards in its application of generic health related quality of life (HRQoL) ordinal metrics to create its QALY claims. The failure to meet the required standards of fundamental measurement means that the cost-per-QALY claims are invalid. This raises the issue of the application of Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) in instrument development and the potential role of patient centric outcome (PCO) instruments that represent the patient voice in value claims. The case made here is that the ICER approach should be abandoned as an unnecessary distraction. If we are to meet standards for the discovery of new facts in therapy response then our focus must be on proposing credible, evaluable and replicable claims within disease states. Instruments, such as the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL)questionnaire that build on the common construct that QoL is the extent to which human needs are fulfilled should be the basis for value claims. HRQoL Instruments that are clinically focused and reflect the value calculus of providers and not patients in measuring response by symptoms and activity limitations are irrelevant. This puts to one side the belief that incremental cost-per-QALY models, the construction of imaginary worlds are, in any sense, a 'gold standard'; a meme embraced by the health technology assessment profession. Claims for incremental cost per QALY outcomes and recommendations for pricing and access driven by willingness to pay thresholds are irrelevant to formulary decisions.

International Development of the Alzheimer's Patient Partners Life Impact Questionnaire (APPLIQue)

AIM

Informal caregivers play a vital role in the care of people with Alzheimer's Disease (AD), yet caregiving is associated with caregivers' burden. The initial objective of the study was to develop a new outcome measure to assess quality of life (QoL) in AD caregivers.

METHODS

Informal (non-professional) caregivers providing 75% or more of the care activities for, and living in the same household as, a person with AD were invited to take part in the study. Qualitative interviews (N = 40) were conducted with AD caregivers in the UK and thematic analyses were applied to generate a pool of potential items. A draft questionnaire was produced and adapted for use in Italy, Spain, Germany and the US. In each of the 5 countries, cognitive debriefing interviews (N = 76) were conducted to determine the questionnaire's face and content validity, followed by a postal validation survey (N = 268). The data from these surveys were combined to reduce the number of items and assess the new questionnaire's psychometric properties.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis of the UK interview transcripts generated a draft questionnaire, which was successfully translated into each additional language. The items were well accepted and easy to complete. However, reanalysis of the qualitative interview data revealed that spousal and non-spousal caregivers identified different experiences of caregiving. A review of the item pool indicated that items were primarily targeted at spousal caregivers. Therefore, further analyses of the postal survey data included spousal caregivers only (n = 116). The results supported scaling assumptions (e.g., corrected item-total correlations ≥0.32), targeting (e.g., floor/ceiling effects <2.5%), internal consistency (α ≥0.93) and test-retest reliability (rs = 0.88) of the new questionnaire, according to classical test theory. Assessment of external construct validity yielded results in accordance with a priori expectations. QoL scores were most strongly related to scores on the emotional reactions sections of the Nottingham Health Profile and the General Well-Being Index. The new questionnaire was found to be capable of detecting meaningful differences between respondents; spousal caregivers had worse QoL when the person with AD was confused (p < .001), could not be left alone (p < .001), did not recognize the caregiver (p < .001), was incontinent (p < .05), and wandered around the house (p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The Alzheimer's Disease Patient Partners Life Impact Questionnaire (APPLIQue) is a questionnaire specific to spousal caregivers of people with AD. Data support its scaling assumptions and it exhibits excellent psychometric properties according to classical test theory. The questionnaire is recommended for use in intervention studies where the QoL of spousal caregivers is of interest.

Yet another Ersatz World: The ICER Final Evidence Report for Additive Cardiovascular Therapies

Previous commentaries in the Formulary Evaluation section of INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy have pointed to the lack of credibility in modeled claims for cost-effectiveness and associated recommendations for pricing by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). The principal objection to ICER reports has been that their modeled claims fail the standards of normal science: they are best seen as pseudoscience. The purpose of this latest commentary is to consider the recently released ICER report for Additive Cardiovascular Disease therapies. This report should not be taken seriously in its claims for cost-effectiveness and pricing in cardiovascular disease (CVD). The analytical framework applied by ICER fails to meet the standards of normal science in demarcating science from pseudoscience. Irrespective of the value judgements and recommendations of an ICER report, these lack credibility. They were never intended to be evaluable and replicable across treatment settings. The claims made are constructed, driven by assumption, and should be put to one side by health system decision makers. In this review the focus is on to the ICER modeled estimates of utility scores in CVD, the insistence on utilizing a generic utility algorithm (the EQ-5D-3L) and the consequent quality adjusted life year (QALY) estimates. Two issues are raised that will be the subject of future commentaries: the lack of appreciation of fundamental measurement and (ii) the importance of the patient voice in benefit claims. Given the importance in the ICER methodology of QALYS, the ad hoc nature of the ordinal utilities introduced to the cardiovascular model must raise concerns over the role the ICER evidence report may play in health care decision-making. These concerns extend to the claim by ICER that, on ICER's own affordability threshold for individual new molecular entities, the anticipated uptake of these therapies may raise questions of overall affordability. Again, we are dealing with an arbitraryconstruct that may adversely impact patient access.

Measurement of patient-reported outcomes. 2: Are current measures failing us?

All instruments designed to measure latent (unobservable) variables, such as patient-reported outcomes (PROs), have three major requirements; a coherent construct theory, a specification equation, and the application of an appropriate response model. The theory guides the selection of content for the questionnaire and the specification equation links the construct theory to scores produced with the instrument. For the specification equation to perform this role, the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) must employ a response model that generates values for its individual items. The most commonly applied response model in PROM development is the Rasch model. To date this level of measurement sophistication has not been achieved in PRO measurement. Consequently, it is not possible to establish a PROM's true construct validity. However, the development of the Lexile Framework for Reading has demonstrated that such objective measurement is possible for latent variables. This article argues that higher quality PROM development is needed if meaningful and valid PRO measurement is to be achieved. It describes the current state of PROM development, shows that published reviews of PROMs adopt inappropriate criteria for judging their quality, and illustrates how the use of traditional PROMs can lead to incorrect (and possibly dangerous) conclusions being drawn about the efficacy of interventions.

A qualitative study of the impact of plexiform neurofibromas on need fulfilment in adults with neurofibromatosis type 1

Objective

To explore the impact of plexiform neurofibromas on the lives of adults with neurofibromatosis type 1.

Background

Neurofibromatosis type 1 is a complex neurogenetic syndrome that affects many aspects of health and functioning. A common manifestation of neurofibromatosis type 1 is plexiform neurofibromas, non-cancerous tumours that can cause disfigurement, pain and neurologic disability. Patient-reported outcome measures used in this condition have addressed symptoms and functional ability but not how the condition affects patients' lives, particularly, their ability to meet their human needs.

Methods

Unstructured qualitative interviews were conducted with adults with neurofibromatosis type 1-associated plexiform neurofibromas in the United Kingdom and United States. Interviewees were encouraged to describe how plexiform neurofibromas affected their ability to meet their needs. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The UK and US transcripts were combined and theoretical thematic analysis was conducted.

Results

In all, 42 interviews (United Kingdom = 20, United States = 22) were conducted. Transcripts revealed 696 statements on the impact of plexiform neurofibromas on need fulfilment. Five major themes emerged: appearance, relationships, independence, role fulfilment and pleasure.

Conclusion

Neurofibromatosis type 1-associated plexiform neurofibromas have a major effect on individuals' ability to meet their needs. An understanding of need fulfilment will complement information generated from traditional patient-reported outcome measures, particularly in a multi-faceted syndrome such as neurofibromatosis type 1.