Cognitive testing and readability of an item bank for measuring the impact of headache on health-related quality of life

Comparison between two patient-reported outcome measures for patients with cervical radiculopathy: A think-aloud study

BACKGROUND

The Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale (CRIS) and Patient Specific Functional Scale 2.0 (PSFS 2.0) are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess activity limitations in patients with cervical radiculopathy (CR). This study a) compared the CRIS subscale 3 and the PSFS 2.0 in patients with CR with respect to completeness and patient preference, b) established the correlation between both PROMs in assessing the individual patient's level of functional limitations and c) assessed the frequency of reported functional limitations.

METHODS

Participants with CR participated in semi-structured, individual, face-to-face interviews as part of a "think-aloud" process; verbalising their thoughts while completing both PROMs. Sessions were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were recruited. The most frequently reported functional limitation on the CRIS was: 'working at a computer' (n = 17) and overhead activities' (n = 10) for the PSFS 2.0. There was significant moderate positive correlation between the scores on the PSFS 2.0 and the CRIS (Spearman's r = 0.55, n = 22 p = .008). Most patients (n = 18; 82%) preferred the ability to present their own individual functional limitations of the PSFS 2.0. Eleven participants (50%) preferred the 11-point scale of the PSFS 2.0 over the 5-point Likert scale scoring option of the CRIS.

CONCLUSION

Both easy to complete PROMs capture functional limitations in patients with CR. Most patients prefer the PSFS 2.0 over the CRIS. The wording and layout of both PROMs need refinement to enhance user-friendliness and avoid misinterpretation.

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.

Content Validity of HIT-6 as a Measure of Headache Impact in People With Migraine: A Narrative Review

Background

The short‐form Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6) is a widely used patient‐reported outcome measure that assesses the negative effects of headaches on normal activity. It was developed using the general headache population and prior to the establishment of the now well‐accepted FDA patient‐reported guidance.

Objective

The objective of this narrative review was to examine existing qualitative research in patients with migraine and headache, providing insight into the relevance and meaningfulness of HIT‐6 items to the lives of migraine patients.

Methods

Articles were identified through database searches (National Library of Medicine and Google Scholar) and review of reference lists of candidate articles.

Results

A total of 3227 articles were identified through database and hand searching. Of these, 12 contained patient‐ or expert‐generated qualitative information regarding headache patients’ experience (8 specific to migraine [episodic and chronic] patients and 4 citing general headache patients). The combined publications described a total of 283 patient interviews. Overarching themes and specific information were identified that provide support of the relevance of content for each HIT‐6 item to migraine patients’ lives. Identified effects of headaches on patients with migraine included limitations in daily activities, needing to lie down during headaches, feeling tired, being irritated by headaches, difficulty concentrating, and the experience of pain. Further, previous research specific to the HIT‐6 indicated that patients understood the instructions, items, and response scales as intended by the instrument authors.

Conclusions

This narrative literature review demonstrates qualitative research support for the relevance of the items of the HIT‐6 in migraine patients, supporting its ongoing use in clinical migraine research and practice.

The impact of health literacy on health status and resource utilization in lumbar degenerative disease

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Health literacy, defined as "the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions," has been demonstrated to affect access to care and appropriate healthcare utilization.

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of health literacy in the evaluation and management of patients with chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross sectional.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients seen at a multisurgeon spine specialty clinic.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D, and Numeric Rating Scales (0-10) for back and leg pain.

METHODS

The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) and Health Literacy Survey, Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D and pain scales were administered to patients undergoing evaluation and treatment for lumbar degenerative disease in the outpatient setting. Patients were surveyed regarding their use of medication, therapy, and pain management modalities.

RESULTS

Of 201 patients approached for participation, 186 completed the health literacy surveys. Thirty (17%) were assessed as having limited literacy, 52 (28%) as possibly having limited literacy and 104 (56%) having adequate literacy based on their NVS scores. The cohort with low NVS scores also had low Health Literacy Survey Scores. Patients with limited literacy had worse back and leg pain scores compared with patients with possibly limited literacy and adequate literacy. Patients with adequate health literacy were more likely to use medications (80% vs. 53%, p = .017) and were more likely to see a specialist (34% vs. 17%) compared with those with limited literacy. Patients with limited health literacy were not more likely to see a chiropractor (7% vs. 7%), but reported more visits (19 vs. 8).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with lower health literacy reported worse back and leg pain scores, indicating either more severe disease or a fundamental difference in their responses to standard health-related quality of life measures. This study also suggests that patients with limited health literacy may underutilize some resources and overutilize other resources. Further study is needed to clarify these patterns, and to examine their impact on health status and clinical outcomes.

Improving CKD-Specific Patient-Reported Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures that are more practical and clinically useful are needed for patients with CKD. We compared a new CKD-specific quality-of-life impact scale (CKD-QOL) with currently used measures.

METHODS

Patients (n=485) in different treatment groups (nondialysis stages 3-5, on dialysis, or post-transplant) completed the kidney-specific CKD-QOL and Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 (KDQOL-36) forms and the generic SF-12 Health Survey at baseline and 3 months. New items summarizing quality of life (QOL) impact attributed to CKD across six QOL domains yielded single impact scores from a six-item static (fixed-length) form and from computerized adaptive tests (CATs) with three to six items. Validity tests compared the CKD-QOL, KDQOL-36 (Burden, Effects, and Symptoms/Problems subscales), and generic SF-12 measures across groups in four tests of clinical status and clinician assessment of change (CKD-specific tests), and number of comorbidities. ANOVA was used to test for group mean differences, variances in each measure explained by groups, and relative validity (RV) in comparison with the referent KDQOL-36 Burden subscale.

RESULTS

KDQOL-36 and CKD-QOL measures generally discriminated better than generic SF-12v2 measures. The pattern of variances across CKD-specific tests comparing validity favored CKD-QOL two-fold over KDQOL-36. Two RV test results confirmed CKD-QOL improvements over the referent KDQOL scale. Results for static and CAT CKD-QOL forms were similar. SF-12 Physical and KDQOL-36 Symptoms scores worsened with increasing comorbid condition counts.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, compared with the KDQOL-36, the new approach to summarizing CKD-specific QOL impact performed better across multiple tests of validity. CAT surveys were more efficient than static surveys.

Standardizing disease-specific quality of life measures across multiple chronic conditions: development and initial evaluation of the QOL Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®)

BACKGROUND

To document the development and evaluation of the Quality of life Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®), a measure that standardizes item content and scoring across chronic conditions and provides a summary, norm-based QOL impact score for each disease.

METHODS

A bank of 49 disease impact items was constructed from previously-used descriptions of health impact to represent ten frequently-measured quality of life (QOL) content areas and operational definitions successfully utilized in generic QOL surveys. In contrast to health in general, all items were administered with attribution to a specific disease (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, angina, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes, asthma, or COPD). Responses from 5418 adults were analyzed as five disease groups: arthritis, cardiovascular, CKD, diabetes, and respiratory. Unidimensionality, item parameter and scale-level invariance, reliability, validity and responsiveness to change during 9-month follow-up were evaluated by disease group and for all groups combined using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA), item response theory (IRT) and analysis of variance methods. QDIS was normed in an independent chronically ill US population sample (N = 4120).

RESULTS

MGCFA confirmed a 1-factor model, justifying a summary score estimated using equal parameters for each item across disease groups. In support of standardized IRT-based scoring, correlations were very high between disease-specific and standardized IRT item slopes (r = 0.88-0.96), thresholds (r = 0.93-0.99) and person-level scores (r ≥ 0.99). Internal consistency, test-retest and person-level IRT reliability were consistently satisfactory across groups. In support of interpreting QDIS as a disease-specific measure, in comparison with generic measures, QDIS consistently discriminated markedly better across disease severity levels, correlated higher with other disease-specific measures in cross-sectional tests, and was more responsive in comparisons of groups with better, same or worse evaluations of disease-specific outcomes at the 9-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardization of content and scoring across diseases was shown to be justified psychometrically and enabled the first summary measure of disease-specific QOL impact normed in the chronically ill population. This disease-specific approach substantially improves discriminant validity and responsiveness over generic measures and provides a basis for better understanding the relative QOL impact of multiple chronic conditions in research and clinical practice.