Recall of health-related quality of life: how does memory affect the SF-6D in patients with psoriasis or multiple sclerosis? A prospective observational study in Germany

An Exploratory Study of Alternative Time Frames and Descriptors for EQ-5D-5L in Obstructive Airway Diseases Using Mixed Methods

OBJECTIVES

EQ-5D-5L with its recall time of "today" may limit its ability to capture episodic symptoms and exacerbations in chronic obstructive airway diseases (OAD). We examined whether longer time frames and changing the intensity response scales to frequency scales could improve the measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L.

METHODS

We used a mixed-method design starting with in-depth interviews with 20 patients and clinicians to elicit preferred time frames using concept elicitation techniques and content analyses. We then administered the top 4 preferred variants using 1- and 4-weeks' time frames with the original intensity or an alternative frequency response scale alongside EQ-5D-5L and St George Respiratory Questionnaire to OAD patients during 2 different visits. We compared the ceiling effects and construct validity by testing a priori hypotheses in relation to St George Respiratory Questionnaire and clinical outcomes via correlation and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses, respectively. Follow-up patients were categorized into "better," "stable," and "worse" groups to assess reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or Cohen's Kappa (k) and responsiveness using ROC analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 184 patients (mean [SD] age: 54[18]; female: 37.0%) completed baseline assessments. A total of 120 patients also completed follow-up assessments (mean [SD] interval: 2.8 [1.7] months). The ceilings were lower in the variants compared with EQ-5D-5L (P < .001). Reliability of the variants were comparable to or higher than EQ-5D-5L. The c-statistic values derived from ROC analyses of the variants were consistently higher than EQ-5D-5L.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of longer time frames with the original intensity or the frequency response scales may improve EQ-5D-5L's psychometric properties in OAD patients.

Systematic Literature Review of Studies Reporting Measures of Functional Outcome or Quality of Life in People with Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia

Aim

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia (NSS) have been linked with poor functional outcomes. A literature review was performed to identify instruments used to assess functional outcomes and quality of life in clinical trials and observational studies conducted in groups of people with NSS.

Methods

Literature search strings were designed using Medical Subject Headings combined with free-text terms and searches were performed using the PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases. For inclusion, articles were required to be published as full-text articles, in English, over the period 2011-2021, include at least one group or treatment arm of people with NSS and report either functional outcomes or quality of life (QoL).

Results

Literature searches identified a total of 3,268 unique hits. After two rounds of screening, 37 publications (covering 35 individual studies) were included in the review. A total of fourteen different instruments were used to assess functional outcomes and eleven different instruments were used to assess QoL. In studies in people with NSS, the most frequently used functional outcome measures were the Personal and Social Performance scale and the Global Assessment of Functioning. The most frequently used QoL instruments included the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life, the Heinrich Carpenter Quality of Life Scale, the Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale and the EQ-5D.

Conclusion

A large number of measures have been used to assess functional outcomes and QoL in people with NSS, these include both generic and condition-specific as well as both interviewer-administered and self-reported instruments.

Population Norms for the EQ-5D-5L, PROPr and SF-6D in Hungary

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop population norms for three preference-accompanied measures [EQ-5D-5L, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-preference scoring system (PROPr) and Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D)] in Hungary.

METHODS

In November 2020, an online cross-sectional survey was conducted among a representative sample of the Hungarian adult general population (n = 1631). Respondents completed the Hungarian versions of the EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2 version 2.1 and 36-item Short Form Survey version 1 (SF-36v1). The association of utilities with sociodemographic and health-related characteristics of respondents was analysed using multivariate regressions.

RESULTS

The proportion of respondents reporting problems ranged from 8 to 44% (self-care to pain/discomfort) on the EQ-5D-5L, 39-94% (physical function to sleep) on PROPr and 38-87% (role limitations to vitality) on the SF-6D. Problems related to physical function, self-care, usual activities/role limitations and pain increased with age, while mental health problems decreased in all three measures. In almost all corresponding domains, respondents indicated the fewest problems on the EQ-5D-5L and the most problems on the SF-6D. The mean EQ-5D-5L, PROPr and SF-6D utilities were 0.900, 0.535 and 0.755, respectively. Female gender (PROPr, SF-6D), a lower level of education (EQ-5D-5L, PROPr), being unemployed or a disability pensioner (EQ-5D-5L), being underweight or obese (SF-6D), lack of physical exercise (all) and polypharmacy (all) were associated with significantly lower utilities. PROPr yielded the lowest and EQ-5D-5L the highest mean utilities in 28 of 30 chronic health conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents the first set of Hungarian population norms for the EQ-5D-5L, PROPr and SF-6D. Our findings can serve as reference values in clinical trials and observational studies and contribute to the monitoring of population health and the assessment of disease burden in Hungary.

Health-related quality of life after otologic surgical treatment for chronic otitis media: systematic review

Objective

This systematic review aims to describe the impact of otologic surgery as a treatment for chronic otitis media (COM) on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of adult patients.

Methods

A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science until May 2023. Prospective studies including adult patients with COM (cholesteatoma) who underwent canal wall up mastoidectomy, canal wall down mastoidectomy, or tympanoplasty without mastoidectomy, with pre- and postoperative HRQoL measurements, were considered eligible. Questionnaire validation studies were excluded. The risk of bias and study quality were evaluated with a Quality Assessment Tool (for before-after studies with no control group). To assess the change in HRQoL, pre- and postoperative HRQoL values and absolute changes were extracted, synthesized, and presented in tables. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated to enhance comparisons.

Results

Of the 720 studies identified, 16 met the inclusion criteria of this review. Different questionnaires were used throughout the studies. The CES and COMOT-15 were used in five studies and the ZCMEI-21 and COMQ-12 in three studies. All studies indicated statistically significant improvement in HRQoL from pre- to postoperative, measured with disease-specific HRQoL questionnaires. General HRQoL questionnaires did not show significant improvement. Calculated SMDs ranged from 0.24 to 6.99.

Discussion and conclusion

Included studies had low (n = 10) to high (n = 6) risk of bias and poor (n = 4), fair (n = 7) or good (n = 5) study quality. Surgical treatment positively impacts the HRQoL of adult COM patients with and without cholesteatoma. However, the clinical relevance of the reported changes is unknown due to the lack of minimal clinically important differences (MCID) or cut-off values in each questionnaire. Therefore, further research regarding the MCIDs of each questionnaire is needed. Future research should also report preoperative chief symptoms and indications for surgery to improve individual patient counseling.

Neurological Health: Not Merely the Absence of Disease: Current Wellbeing Instruments Across the Spectrum of Neurology

OBJECTIVE

Well-being and quality of life can vary independently of disease. Instruments measuring well-being and quality of life are commonly used in neurology, but there has been little investigation into the extent in which they accurately measure wellbeing/quality of life or if they merely reflect a diseased state of an individual.

DESIGN

Systematic searches, thematic analysis and narrative synthesis were undertaken. Individual items from instruments represented in ≥ 5 publications were categorised independently, without prior training, by five neurologists and one well-being researcher, as relating to 'disease-effect' or 'Well-being' with a study-created instrument. Items were additionally categorised into well-being domains.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycINFO from 1990 to 2020 were performed, across the 13 most prevalent neurological diseases.

RESULTS

301 unique instruments were identified. Multiple sclerosis had most unique instruments at 92. SF-36 was used most, in 66 studies. 22 instruments appeared in ≥ 5 publications: 19/22 'well-being' outcome instruments predominantly measured disease effect (Fleiss kappa = .60). Only 1/22 instruments was categorised unanimously as relating to well-being. Instruments predominantly measured mental, physical and activity domains, over social or spiritual.

CONCLUSIONS

Most neurological well-being or quality-of-life instruments predominantly measure disease effect, rather than disease-independent well-being. Instruments differed widely in well-being domains examined.

Systematic Review of the Effect of a One-Day Versus Seven-Day Recall Duration on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing uncertainty around the most suitable recall period for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHOD

This systematic review integrates quantitative and qualitative literature across health, economics, and psychology to explore the effect of a one-day (or '24-h') versus seven-day (or 'one week') recall period. The following databases were searched from database inception to 30 November 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, and Sociological Abstracts. Studies were included that compared a one-day (or '24-h') versus seven-day (or weekly) recall period condition on patient-reported scores for PROM and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) instrument scores in adult populations (aged 18 and above) or combined paediatric and adult populations with a majority of respondents aged over 18 years. Studies were excluded if they assessed health behaviours only, used ecological momentary assessment to derive an index of daily recall, or incorporated clinician reports of patient symptoms. We extracted results relevant to six domains with generic health relevance: physical functioning, pain, cognition, psychosocial wellbeing, sleep-related symptoms and aggregated disease-specific signs and symptoms. Quantitative studies compared weekly recall scores with the mean or maximum score over the last seven days or with the same-day recall score.

RESULTS

Overall, across the 24 quantitative studies identified, 158 unique results were identified. Symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and HRQoL lower when assessed with a weekly recall than a one-day recall. A narrative synthesis of 33 qualitative studies integrated patient perspectives on the suitability of a one-day versus seven-day recall period for assessing health state or quality of life. Participants had mixed preferences, some noted the accuracy of recall for the one-day period but others preferred the seven-day recall for conditions characterised by high symptom variability, or where PROMs concepts required integration of infrequent experiences or functioning over time.

CONCLUSION

This review identified a clear trend toward higher symptom scores and worse quality of life being reported for a seven-day compared to a one-day recall. The review also identified anomalies in this pattern for some wellbeing items and a need for further research on positively framed items. A better understanding of the impact of using different recall periods within PROMs and HRQoL instruments will help contextualise future comparisons between instruments. Questionnaires ask patients about their health over different time periods (e.g., "what were your symptoms like over the last week?" versus "what were your symptoms like today?"). Studies find that people may report their symptoms as more severe when they are asked to think about their symptoms over the last week compared to the last day. Understanding how different time periods influence patient responses will allow researchers to compare and develop new questionnaires and may help clinicians to choose the best questionnaire to understand their patient's condition. We conducted a systematic literature review on studies which had looked at the impact of using different recall periods on patient responses. We found 24 studies that compared patient scores from questionnaires asking their health "over the last day" compared to "over the last week". Overall, symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and health as poorer when they were reported over the last week compared to the last day on average. We also found 33 studies that asked patients to describe which recall period they preferred. Patients had mixed preferences with more preferring a seven-day recall where symptoms and health impacts varied a lot.

Psychometric evaluation of the Urgency NRS as a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with ulcerative colitis

Background

The Urgency Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was developed as a content-valid single-item patient-reported outcome measure to assess severity of bowel urgency. Here, we evaluated the psychometric properties of the Urgency NRS.

Methods

Data were from a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (NCT03518086). Patients completed the Urgency NRS using a daily electronic diary, from which weekly average Urgency NRS scores were calculated. Test–retest reliability, known-groups validity, construct validity, responsiveness, and score interpretation were assessed using the modified Mayo score, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), Patient Global Rating of Severity (PGRS), Patient Global Rating of Change (PGRC), and Geboes score.

Results

The study sample comprised 1,162 participants (40.2% female). Mean Urgency NRS score was higher (worse) at baseline than at week 12 (6.2 vs. 3.7). Test–retest reliability was strong, with intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.76–0.89. Baseline least-square mean Urgency NRS score was higher for participants with a PGRS score greater than the median (worse symptoms) than for those with a PGRS score less than or equal to the median (7.5 vs. 5.4; p < 0.0001), indicating good known-groups validity. Urgency NRS score was moderately correlated with IBDQ total and domain scores, PGRS, PGRC, and modified Mayo stool frequency, establishing its convergent validity. Correlations were weak for Geboes score and weak to moderate for modified Mayo endoscopic subscore and modified Mayo rectal bleeding, indicating that the Urgency NRS also had discriminant validity. Patients achieving clinical remission, clinical response, IBDQ remission, and PGRS score improvement showed significantly greater improvement on the Urgency NRS (p < 0.0001 for all), demonstrating responsiveness to change. A ≥ 3-point improvement in Urgency NRS score represented a meaningful improvement in bowel urgency and an Urgency NRS score of ≤ 1 point represented a bowel urgency remission threshold that was closely associated with clinical, endoscopic, and histologic remission.

Conclusions

The Urgency NRS is a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measure that is suitable for evaluating treatment benefits in clinical trials in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00522-2.

Relationships Between Self-Rated Health at Three Time Points: Past, Present, Future

Background: Multiple studies have shown that people who have experienced a serious health problem such as an injury tend to overrate the quality of health they had before that event. The main objective of this study was to test whether the phenomenon of respondents overrating their past health can also be observed in people from the general population. A second aim was to test whether habitual optimism is indeed focused on events in the future.

Method: A representatively selected community sample from Leipzig, Germany (n = 2282, age range: 40–75 years) was examined. Respondents were asked to assess their current health, their past health (5 years before), and their expected future health (in 5 years) on a 0–100 scale. In addition, the study participants completed several questionnaires on specific aspects of physical and mental health.

Results: Respondents of all age groups assessed their health as having been better in the past than it was at present. Moreover, they also assessed their earlier state of health more positively than people 5 years younger did their current state. Habitual optimism was associated with respondents having more positive expectations of how healthy they will be in 5 years time (r = 0.37), but the correlation with their assessments of their current health was nearly as high (r = 0.36).

Conclusion: Highly positive scores of retrospectively assessed health among people who have experienced a health problem cannot totally be accounted for by a response to that health problem.

Medical Cannabis Patients Report Improvements in Health Functioning and Reductions in Opiate Use

Purpose: Opioid use rates have dropped as North American patients gain access to medical cannabis, indicating a harm reduction role, yet health outcomes remain mostly unexplored. This study presents self-reported medical cannabis use, perceptions of health functioning, and changes in opioid pain medication use in Florida medical cannabis patients.Methods: Patients (n = 2,183) recruited from medical dispensaries across Florida completed a 66-item cross-sectional survey that included demographic, health, and medication usage items, along with items from the Medical Outcomes Survey (SF-36) to assess health functioning before and after cannabis initiation.Results: Most participants were between the ages of 20 and 70 years of age (95%), over 54% were female, 47% were employed, and most (85%) were white. Commonly reported ailment groups were Pain and Mental Health combined (47.92%), Mental Health (28.86%) or Pain (9.07%). Health domains of bodily pain, physical functioning, and social functioning improved while limitations due to physical and emotional problems were unchanged. Most patients rated medical cannabis as being important to their quality of life. Many (60.98%) reported using pain medications prior to medical cannabis, 93.36% of these reported a change in pain medication after medical cannabis. The majority of participants (79%) reported either cessation or reduction in pain medication use following initiation of medical cannabis and 11.47% described improved functioning.Conclusions: The findings suggest that some medical cannabis patients decreased opioid use without harming quality of life or health functioning, soon after the legalization of medical cannabis. The public health implications of medical cannabis as an alternative pain medication are discussed.

Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Health-Related Out-of-Pocket Costs: The Cost for Patients Questionnaire

OBJECTIVE

The growth of healthcare spending is a major concern for insurers and governments but also for patients whose health problems may result in costs going beyond direct medical costs. To develop a comprehensive tool to measure direct and indirect costs of a health condition for patients and their families to various outpatient contexts.

METHODS

We conducted a content and face validation including results of a systematic review to identify the items related to direct and indirect costs for patients or their families and an online Delphi to determine the cost items to retain. We conducted a pilot test-retest with 18 naive participants and analyzed data calculating intraclass correlation and kappa coefficients.

RESULTS

An initial list of 34 items was established from the systematic review. Each round of the Delphi panel incorporated feedback from the previous round until a strong consensus was achieved. After 4 rounds of the Delphi to reach consensus on items to be included and wording, the questionnaire had a total of 32 cost items. For the test-retest, kappa coefficients ranged from -0.11 to 1.00 (median = 0.86), and intraclass correlation ranged from -0.02 to 0.99 (median = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

A rigorous process of content and face development was implemented for the Cost for Patients Questionnaire, and this study allowed to set a list of cost elements to be considered from the patient's perspective. Additional research including a test-retest with a larger sample will be part of a subsequent validation strategy.

Development of otology specific outcome measure: Ear Outcome Survey-16 (EOS-16)

PURPOSE

An important outcome measure of patient care is the impact on the patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Current ear-specific HRQoL instruments are designed for one diagnosis and emphasize different subdivisions such as symptoms, hearing problems, psychosocial impact, and the need for care. The optimal length of the recall period has not been studied. For these reasons, a new survey is needed that would cover most chronic ear diseases.

METHODS

A preliminary 24-item survey (EOS-24) was created. Untreated adult patients (included n = 186) with one of seven different chronic otologic conditions from all university hospitals in Finland were recruited to respond to EOS-24 and the 15D general HRQoL instrument. The recruiting otologists evaluated the severity of the disease and the disability caused by it. A control group was recruited. Based on the patients' responses in different diagnosis groups, the items were reduced according to pre-defined criteria. The resulting survey was validated using a thorough statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The relevance and necessity of the original 24 items were thoroughly investigated, leading to the exclusion of 8 items and the modification of 1. The remaining 16 items were well-balanced between subdivisions and were useful in all seven diagnosis groups, thus constituting the final instrument, EOS-16. The most suitable recall period was three months.

CONCLUSIONS

EOS-16 has been created according to the HRQoL survey guidelines with a versatile nationwide patient population. The survey has been validated and can be used for a wide range of chronic ear diseases as a HRQoL instrument.

Validated Tools to Measure Costs for Patients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Increasing healthcare expenditures is a major concern to insurers and governments, but also to patients who must pay a greater proportion of their healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to identify validated tools for measuring the costs of a health condition for patients as well as the different elements to be considered when measuring costs from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted from 1984 to December 2020. The search strategy was applied to seven different databases that had been identified prior as pertinent sources. Two authors independently extracted and compiled data. In case of disagreement, arbitration by two other researchers was conducted. The methodological quality of the included articles was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.

RESULTS

Among the 679 retrieved articles, nine met the inclusion criteria. The types of costs evaluated in these studies included direct costs for patients as well as for caregivers, indirect costs, and intangible costs. The development and validation processes used in these articles included a literature search, a discussion with the involved stakeholders, the development of an initial questionnaire, the testing of the questionnaire on a sample of patients, and a critical review. Regarding the psychometric properties of the tool, only five studies tested the reliability and validity of the instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

There are very few validated tools available to measure the different health-related costs from a patient perspective. Further research is needed to develop and validate a versatile and generalizable tool using a rigorous methodological process.

How to measure fluctuating impairments in people with MS: development of an ambulatory assessment version of the EQ-5D-5L in an exploratory study

Background

Health fluctuations even within a single day are typical in multiple sclerosis (MS), but are not captured by widely used questionnaires like the EQ-5D-5L. This exploratory study aimed to develop an ambulatory assessment (AA) version of the EQ-5D-5L (EQ-5D-AA) where patients rate their health on mobile phones multiple times per day over several days, and to assess its feasibility and face validity.

Methods

An initial EQ-5D-AA version was based on two patient focus groups. It was then tested and continuously developed in an iterative process: patients completed it over several days, followed by debriefing interviews. Findings were used to refine the EQ-5D-AA, with the resulting version being tested by the subsequent wave of patients until participants declared no need for changes anymore. Before and after the AA period, participants completed the standard paper-based EQ-5D-5L asking about ‘today’.

Results

Focus group participants reported that their impairments often fluctuated between and within days. They regarded an AA with three assessments per day over seven days most appropriate; assessment should be retrospective to the previous assessment, but not all items should be assessed at each time point. Four waves of AA testing were conducted. Thirteen out of the 17 participants preferred the AA over standard assessment as they regarded it more informative, but not too burdensome.

Conclusion

The newly developed one-week AA of the EQ-5D-5L captures within-day and day-to-day health fluctuations in people with MS. From the patients’ perspective, it is a feasible and face valid way to provide important information beyond what is captured by the standard EQ-5D-5L.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-02802-8.

Conventional and retrospective change in health-related quality of life of trauma patients: an explorative observational follow-up study

Background

Within trauma care measurement of changes in health-related quality of life (HRQL) is used in understanding patterns of recovery over time. However, conventionally-measured change in HRQL may not always reflect the change in HRQL as perceived by the patient. Recall bias and response shift may contribute to disagreement between conventional and retrospective change in HRQL. This study aimed to measure conventional and retrospective change of HRQL and assess to which extent recall bias and response shift contribute to disagreement between these two in a heterogeneous sample of adult trauma patients.

Methods

A sample of trauma patients (≥18 years) who attended the Emergency Department and were admitted to an Intensive Care unit or ward of one of ten Dutch hospitals received postal questionnaires 1 week (T1) and 3 months (T2) post-injury. At T1 and T2 participants completed the EQ-5D-3 L and EQ-VAS for their current health status. At T2 participants also filled out a recall and then-test regarding their health status at T1. The responses were used to assess conventional and retrospective change, recall bias and response shift. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to examine conventional and retrospective change on a group level. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to examine individual agreement between conventional and retrospective change. Uni- and multivariate linear regression analysis were used to investigate the association between background factors and recall bias and response shift.

Results

The EQ-5D-3 L, recall and then-test were completed by 550 patients. Mean EQ-5D-3 L summary score improved from 0.48 at T1 to 0.74 at T2. Mean EQ-VAS score improved from 56 at T1 to 73 at T2. Retrospective change was significantly higher than conventional change (EQ-5D-3 L: Z = -5.2, p < 0.05; EQ-VAS Z = -2.1, p < 0.05). Pairwise comparisons showed that agreement between conventional and retrospective change was fair (EQ-5D-3 L: ICC = 0.49; EQ-VAS: ICC = 0.48). For EQ-5-3 L response shift was significantly higher than recall bias (Z = − 4.5, p < 0.05). Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), severe injury and/or posttraumatic stress symptoms were more susceptible to recall bias and response shift.

Conclusions

We conclude that, compared to recall bias, response shift contributed more to the disagreement between conventional and retrospective change in EQ-5D-3 L summary score and EQ-VAS. Predictable subgroups of trauma patients were more susceptible to recall bias and response shift.