Identifying Relevant Concepts for the Development of a Communicative Participation Item Bank for Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Existing Instruments

PURPOSE

This study aims to systematically identify items that measure communicative participation from measurement instruments that measure (aspects of) communication and/or participation in children and adolescents (5-18 years old) with communication disorders, for developing an item bank.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase to search for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or parent reports measuring aspects of communication and/or participation in children and adolescents. The individual items of the included measurement instruments were reviewed on whether they measure communicative participation. The items were then classified into one of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for Children and Youth (World Health Organization, 2007) domains of activities and participation.

RESULTS

A total of 29 instruments were found, nine PROMs and 20 parent reports. One hundred forty-five items were identified that measure communicative participation. From these 145 items, 74 were retrieved from PROMs (51%), and 71 were retrieved from parent reports (49%). The majority of items were classified in ICF Domain 7, interpersonal interactions and relationships (73.8%), followed by Domain 8, major life areas (13.8%), and Domain 9, community, social, and civic life (8.3%). Only a few items were found in Domains 5 and 6, and none was found in Domains 1, 2, and 4.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 145 items potentially useful for developing an item bank addressing communicative participation in children and adolescents with communication disorders. However, item development in collaboration with the target population is needed to ensure that these items fully reflect the construct.

The psychometric properties of the PROMIS® profile CAT in people with stroke

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Profile Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) consists of seven CATs and one single item measuring most relevant aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The aim of our study was to determine construct validity and floor and ceiling effects of the PROMIS Profile CAT in Dutch people with stroke.

METHODS

People with stroke receiving rehabilitation completed the PROMIS Profile CAT and the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ5D). Construct validity was evaluated with hypotheses testing based on expected correlations between the profile domains and the domains of the EQ5D. The proportion of participants with the lowest and highest scores were calculated for each profile domain to assess floor and ceiling effects.

RESULTS

160 participants were included (median age 61 years, 41.9% female). For the PROMIS Profile domains Physical Function, Anxiety, Depression, Sleep Disturbance, Pain Interference, and Pain Intensity > 75% of the results met our hypotheses. For Fatigue and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities only 60% of hypotheses were met. No floor or ceiling effects were found, with the exception of a floor effect for Pain Intensity which probably indicates that many participants had no pain.

CONCLUSION

Most domains of the PROMIS Profile CAT showed sufficient construct validity and no problematic floor or ceiling effects in people with stroke. These CATs and the single item Pain Intensity can be used to efficiently measure HRQoL in people with stroke.

What's in a score: A longitudinal investigation of scores based on item response theory and classical test theory for the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire in cognitively normal and impaired older adults

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate whether item response theory (IRT)-based scoring allows for a more accurate, responsive, and less biased assessment of everyday functioning than traditional classical test theory (CTT)-based scoring, as measured with the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire.

METHOD

In this longitudinal multicenter study including cognitively normal and impaired individuals, we examined IRT-based and CTT-based score distributions and differences between diagnostic groups using linear regressions, and investigated scale attenuation. We compared change over time between scoring methods using linear mixed models with random intercepts and slopes for time.

RESULTS

Two thousand two hundred ninety-four participants were included (66.6 ± 7.7 years, 54% female): n = 2,032 (89%) with normal cognition, n = 93 (4%) with subjective cognitive decline, n = 79 (3%) with mild cognitive impairment, and n = 91 (4%) with dementia. At baseline, IRT-based and CTT-based scores were highly correlated (r = -0.92). IRT-based scores showed less scale attenuation than CTT-based scores. In a subsample of n = 1,145 (62%) who were followed for a mean of 1.3 (SD = 0.6) years, IRT-based scores declined significantly among cognitively normal individuals (unstandardized coefficient [B] = -0.15, 95% confidence interval, 95% CI [-0.28, -0.03], effect size = -0.02), whereas CTT-based scores did not (B = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.41], effect size = 0.02). In the other diagnostic groups, effect sizes of change over time were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

IRT-based scores were less affected by scale attenuation than CTT-based scores. With regard to responsiveness, IRT-based scores showed more signal than CTT-based scores in early disease stages, highlighting the IRT-based scores' superior suitability for use in preclinical populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Navigating the outcome maze: a scoping review of outcomes and instruments in clinical trials in genetic neurodevelopmental disorders and intellectual disability

Background

Individuals with genetic neurodevelopmental disorders (GNDs) or intellectual disability (ID) are often affected by complex neuropsychiatric comorbidities. Targeted treatments are increasingly available, but due to the heterogeneity of these patient populations, choosing a key outcome and corresponding outcome measurement instrument remains challenging.

Objectives

The aim of this scoping review was to describe the research on outcomes and instruments used in clinical trials in GNDs and ID.

Eligibility criteria

Clinical trials in individuals with GNDs and ID for any intervention over the past 10 years were included in the review.

Sources of evidence

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Titles and abstracts were independently screened for eligibility with a subsample of 10% double-screening for interrater reliability. Data from full texts were independently reviewed. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached.

Charting methods

Information was recorded on patient populations, interventions, designs, outcomes, measurement instruments, and type of reporter when applicable. Qualitative and descriptive analyses were performed.

Results

We included 312 studies reporting 91 different outcomes, with cognitive function most frequently measured (28%). Various outcome measurement instruments (n = 457) were used, with 288 in only a single clinical trial. There were 18 genetic condition-specific instruments and 16 measures were designed ad-hoc for one particular trial. Types of report included proxy-report (39%), self-report (22%), clinician-report (16%), observer-report (6%), self-assisted report (1%), or unknown (16%).

Conclusion

This scoping review of current practice reveals a myriad of outcomes and outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in GNDs and ID. This complicates generalization, evidence synthesis, and evaluation. It underlines the need for consensus on suitability, validity, and relevancy of instruments, ultimately resulting in a core outcome set. A series of steps is proposed to move from the myriad of measures to a more unified approach.

Estimating anchor-based minimal important change using longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis

PURPOSE

The minimal important change (MIC) is defined as the smallest within-individual change in a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that patients on average perceive as important. We describe a method to estimate this value based on longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis (LCFA). The method is evaluated and compared with a recently published method based on longitudinal item response theory (LIRT) in simulated and real data. We also examined the effect of sample size on bias and precision of the estimate.

METHODS

We simulated 108 samples with various characteristics in which the true MIC was simulated as the mean of individual MICs, and estimated MICs based on LCFA and LIRT. Additionally, both MICs were estimated in existing PROMIS Pain Behavior data from 909 patients. In another set of 3888 simulated samples with sample sizes of 125, 250, 500, and 1000, we estimated LCFA-based MICs.

RESULTS

The MIC was equally well recovered with the LCFA-method as using the LIRT-method, but the LCFA analyses were more than 50 times faster. In the Pain Behavior data (with higher scores indicating more pain behavior), an LCFA-based MIC for improvement was estimated to be 2.85 points (on a simple sum scale ranging 14-42), whereas the LIRT-based MIC was estimated to be 2.60. The sample size simulations showed that smaller sample sizes decreased the precision of the LCFA-based MIC and increased the risk of model non-convergence.

CONCLUSION

The MIC can accurately be estimated using LCFA, but sample sizes need to be preferably greater than 125.

Country-specific reference values for PROMIS® pain, physical function and participation measures compared to US reference values

INTRODUCTION

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®) is commonly used across medical conditions. To facilitate interpretation of scores across countries, we calculated Dutch reference values for PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), Pain Behavior (PROMIS-PB), Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities (PROMIS-APSRA), and Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities (PROMIS-SSRA), as compared to US reference values.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A panel completed full PROMIS-PF (n=1310), PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-PB (n=1052), and PROMIS-APSRA and PROMIS-SSRA (n=1002) item banks and reported their level of health per domain (no, mild, moderate, severe limitations). T-scores were calculated by sample and subgroups (age, gender, self-reported level of domain). Distribution-based and anchor-based thresholds for mild, moderate, and severe scores were determined.

RESULTS

Mean T-scores were close to the US mean of 50 for PROMIS-PF (49.8) and PROMIS-APSRA (50.6), lower for PROMIS-SSRA (47.5) and higher for PROMIS-PI (54.9) and PROMIS-PB (52.0). Distribution-based thresholds for mild, moderate, and severe scores were comparable to US recommended cut-off values (except for PROMIS-PI) but participants reported limitations 'earlier' than suggested thresholds.

CONCLUSION

Dutch reference values were close to US reference values for some PROMIS domains but not all. We recommend country-specific reference values to facilitate worldwide PROMIS use.KEY MESSAGESPROMIS offers universally applicable IRT-based efficient and patient-friendly measures to assess commonly relevant patient-reported outcomes across medical conditions.To support the use of PROMIS in daily clinical practice and research across the world, country-specific general population reference values should be obtained.More research is necessary to obtain reliable and valid cut-off values for what constitutes mild, moderate and severe scores from the patients' perspective.

Core outcome measurement instruments for use in clinical and research settings for adults with post-COVID-19 condition: an international Delphi consensus study

Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is a new, complex, and poorly understood disorder. A core outcome set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in adults has been developed and agreement is now required on the most appropriate measurement instruments for these core outcomes. We conducted an international consensus study involving multidisciplinary experts and people with lived experience of long COVID. The study comprised a literature review to identify measurement instruments for the core outcomes, a three-round online modified Delphi process, and an online consensus meeting to generate a core outcome measurement set (COMS). 594 individuals from 58 countries participated. The number of potential instruments for the 12 core outcomes was reduced from 319 to 19. Consensus was reached for inclusion of the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale for respiratory outcomes. Measures for two relevant outcomes from a previously published COS for acute COVID-19 were also included: time until death, for survival, and the Recovery Scale for COVID-19, for recovery. Instruments were suggested for consideration for the remaining nine core outcomes: fatigue or exhaustion, pain, post-exertion symptoms, work or occupational and study changes, and cardiovascular, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes; however, consensus was not achieved for instruments for these outcomes. The recommended COMS and instruments for consideration provide a foundation for the evaluation of post-COVID-19 condition in adults, which should help to optimise clinical care and accelerate research worldwide. Further assessment of this COMS is warranted as new data emerge on existing and novel measurement instruments.

Common measures or common metrics? the value of IRT-based common metrics

There is a clear need to harmonize outcome measurement. Some authors propose to express scores as T scores to facilitate interpretation of PROM results in clinical practice. While this is a step in the right direction, there are important limitations to the acceptance of the T score metric as a common metric when T scores are based on raw sum scores of ordinal items: Such T scores of different instruments are not exactly comparable because they are not interval scaled; T scores of different measures are only on the same scale if exactly the same reference group is used; and the T sore metric cannot be maintained because it is reference population-dependent and needs to be updated regularly. These limitations can be overcome by using an item response theory (IRT)-based metric. Items from different measures can be placed on the same IRT metric to make scores comparable on an interval scale. The PROMIS initiative used IRT to develop item banks for measuring various health outcomes. Other PROMs have been linked to the PROMIS metric. Although PROMIS uses a T-score metric for practical reasons, the underlying PROMIS metric is actually an IRT metric. An IRT approach also enables further development of an item bank while preserving the underlying metric. Therefore, IRT-based metrics should be considered as common metrics for the future.

Clinician-reported outcome measures for the assessment of vitiligo: A scoping review

Clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinROMs) are essential for assessment of vitiligo in clinical trials and daily practice. Several instruments have been developed and tested to measure, for example, vitiligo extent, repigmentation and activity. The goal of this review was to identify all introductory publications of ClinROMs for vitiligo that include at least some aspects of validation and to describe the instruments' characteristics, intention for use and practical strengths and limitations. A search strategy was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to July 2022. Based on the literature search (n = 2860), 10 articles were identified, describing 14 different ClinROMs. Six ClinRoms measured disease extent and/or repigmentation, seven evaluated disease activity and one was a composite score. The Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI), and Vitiligo Extent Score (VES and VESplus) measure overall disease extent and/or repigmentation. The VASI relies on hand units (1% body surface area), whereas the VES and VESplus use a picture-based scoring technique. The Vitiligo Extent Score for a Target Area (VESTA) measures repigmentation percentage for target lesions. One global assessment score for extent has been validated. Vitiligo disease activity scores included a static measure of clinical activity signs (Vitiligo Signs of Activity Score [VSAS]) and two measures assessing dynamic evolution (Vitiligo Disease Activity Score [VDAS] and Vitiligo Disease Improvement Score [VDIS]). The Vitiligo European Task Force assessment tool (VETFa) is a composite score. Depending on the practical strengths and limitations as well as the research question and setting (clinical trials vs. daily practice), the choice of an appropriate ClinROM may differ. Fourteen ClinROMs in vitiligo were identified to measure vitiligo extent, repigmentation, and activity. Further research evaluating the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of each instrument and worldwide consensus on which instrument to use for a specific outcome (domain) is greatly needed.

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the ICHOM standard set for stroke: the Dutch version

INTRODUCTION

The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) developed a standard set of patient-centered outcome measures for use in stroke patients. In addition to the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health, it is comprised of 25 questions that are not part of a specific questionnaire. This study aimed to translate these 25 single questions into Dutch.

METHODS

Two native Dutch-speaking translators independently translated the original ICHOM questions into Dutch. A consensus translation was made by these translators and a third person. This translation was subsequently translated back to English independently by two native English-speaking translators. Afterwards a pre-final version was made by consensus of a committee. After field-testing among 30 stroke patients, a final version was made.

RESULTS

The forward and backward translations led to eight cross-cultural adaptations. Based on the interviews with stroke patients, 12 questions were changed to enhance comprehensibility leading to a final Dutch translation of the 25 single questions.

CONCLUSIONS

A Dutch translation of the 25 single questions of the ICHOM Standard Set for Stroke was developed. Now a complete ICHOM Standard Set for Stroke can be used in Dutch populations allowing comparison and improvement of stroke care.

Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes: what and how to measure? A narrative review

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.

Further development in measuring communicative participation: identifying items to extend the applicability of the communicative participation item bank

BACKGROUND

The ability to communicate is a prerequisite for participation in today's society. To measure participation in adults with communication disorders, the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) was developed in 2006. Since then, several new PROMs have been developed to measure communication and the impact of communication disorders on participation. Moreover, the CPIB items do not all appear to be relevant to certain populations with communication problems and context of communicative participation is changing rapidly, given the increased use of digital communication forms. The purpose of this study was to identify new PROMs developed since 2006 that aim to measure (aspects of) communication, in order to select items that are suitable for expanding the Communicative Participation Item Bank to make the item bank more widely applicable (e.g., to the hearing-impaired population) and tailored to the current societal context.

METHODS

Medline and Embase were used to search for PROMs that aim to measure (aspects of) communication. Each new PROM as well as the CPIB, was evaluated to determine to what extent it contains items that measure communicative participation and to what extent these items capture all communicative participation domains by linking each item to the ICF Activities and Participation domains.

RESULTS

This study identified 31 new PROMs, containing 391 items that were labelled as measuring communicative participation. The majority of the 391 items measure aspects of ICF Activities and Participation domain 'communication', followed by the domain 'interpersonal interactions and relationships'. The other ICF Activity and Participation domains were less often addressed. Analysis of the CPIB showed that items do not cover all domains of participation as defined in the ICF, such as the 'major life areas' domain.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a potential pool of 391 items measuring communicative participation that could be considered for extending the CPIB. We found items in domains that are already present in the CPIB, but also items that relate to new domains, such as an item on talking with customers or clients for the 'major life areas' domain. Inclusion of new items in other domains would benefit the comprehensiveness of the item bank.

Responsiveness and minimal important change of seven PROMIS computerized adaptive tests (CAT) in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) has the potential to harmonize the measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) across medical conditions. We evaluated responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) of seven Dutch-Flemish PROMIS computerized adaptive tests (CAT) in Dutch patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

CKD patients (eGFR < 30 ml/min.1.73m²) completed at baseline and after 6 months seven PROMIS CATs (assessing physical function, pain interference, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, and ability to participate in social roles and activities), Short Form Health Survey 12 (SF-12), PROMIS Pain Intensity single item, Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI), and Global Rating Scales (GRS) of change. Responsiveness was assessed by testing predefined hypotheses about expected correlations among measures, area under the ROC Curve, and effect sizes. MIC was determined with predictive modelling.

RESULTS

207 patients were included; 186 (90%) completed the follow-up. Most results were in accordance with expectations (70-91% of hypotheses confirmed), with some exceptions for PROMIS Anxiety and Ability to Participate (60% and 42% of hypotheses confirmed, respectively). For PROMIS Anxiety and Depression correlations with the GRS were too low (0.04 and 0.20, respectively) to calculate a MIC. MIC values, representing minimal important deterioration, ranged from 0.4 to 2.5 T-score points for the other domains.

CONCLUSION

We found sufficient responsiveness of PROMIS CATs Physical Function, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, and Depression. The results for PROMIS CATs Pain Interference were almost sufficient, but some results for Anxiety and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities were not as expected. Reported MIC values should be interpreted with caution because most patients did not change.

Suitability of the animated activity questionnaire for use as computer adaptive test: establishing the AAQ-CAT

PURPOSE

The animated activity questionnaire (AAQ) is a computer-based measure of activity limitations. To answer a question, patients choose the animation of a person performing an activity that matches their own level of limitation. The AAQ has not yet been tested for suitability to be applied as computer-adaptive test (CAT). Thus, the objective of this study was to develop and evaluate an AAQ-based CAT to facilitate the application of the AAQ in daily clinical care.

METHODS

Patients (n = 1408) with hip/knee osteoarthritis from Brazil, Denmark, France, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the UK responded to all 17 AAQ items. Assumptions of item-response theory (IRT) modelling were investigated. To establish item parameters for the CAT, a graded response model was estimated. To evaluate the performance of post-hoc simulated AAQ-based CATs, precision, test length, and construct validity (correlations with well-established measures of activity limitations) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Unidimensionality (CFI = 0.95), measurement invariance (R²-change < 2%), and IRT item fit (S-X² p > .003) of the AAQ were supported. Performing simulated CATs, the mean test length was more than halved (≤ 8 items), while the range of precise measurement (standard error ≤ 0.3) was comparable to the full AAQ. The correlations between original AAQ scores and three AAQ-CAT versions were ≥ 0.95. Correlations of AAQ-CAT scores with patient-reported and performance measures of activity limitations were ≥ 0.60.

CONCLUSION

The almost non-verbal AAQ-CAT is an innovative and efficient tool in patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis from various countries, measuring activity limitations with lower respondent burden, but similar precision and construct validity compared to the full AAQ.

Psychometric properties and reference values of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) sleep item banks in the Dutch general population

Psychometric properties of the v1.0 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) sleep disturbance (27 items) and sleep-related impairment (SRI; 16 items) item banks, short forms derived from the item bank, and simulated computerised adaptive test (CAT), were assessed in a representative sample of 1,006 adults from the Dutch general population. For sleep disturbance all items fitted the item response theory model. Four items showed differential item functioning (i.e., lack of measurement invariance) for age and two for language but the impact on scores (expressed as T-scores) was small. Reliable scores (r > 0.90) were found for 92.2%-96.3% of respondents with the full bank, short forms with six and eight items, and CAT, but for only 25.6% with the four-item short form. For SRI two items did not fit the item response theory model. Four items showed differential item functioning for language but the impact on T-scores was small. Reliable scores were found for 82.1% with the full bank, for 47.8%-69.5% with short forms and CAT. T-scores of 49.7 and 49.3 represent the average score of the Dutch general population for sleep disturbance and SRI, respectively. In conclusion, sufficient structural validity, reliability, and cross-cultural validity was found for the full banks but short forms of four items are not reliable enough for clinical practice. For SRI we recommend the full item bank if this is the primary outcome.

Everyday Barriers in Communicative Participation According to People With Communication Problems

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of participation situations that are challenging for people with communication problems, to provide input for the further development of potential items for the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB).

METHOD

A purposive sampling strategy was used to include a diverse group of people with communication problems. Diaries were used as a sensitizing exercise for inductive in-depth interviews. In these interviews, elements of communicative participation situations (concepts) were elicited that participants themselves experienced as difficult because of their communication problem. A thematic content analysis was used to identify overarching themes. In addition, new items were formulated based on the raw codes of the transcripts and linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Activity and Participation domains to examine the distribution of items across the breadth of the construct of communicative participation.

RESULTS

Eighteen interviews yielded 44 different concepts. They were clustered in six themes, which capture the person, location, topic, mode, moment, and pace of communication. In total, 103 new items measuring communicative participation were formulated. Most of these items relate to International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Activity and Participation domains "interpersonal interactions and relationships," "major life areas," and "community, social, and civic life."

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in an overview of self-reported barriers in daily communicative participation experienced by people with communication problems. These communicative participation situations can be captured within 44 concepts, which are covered by six themes. Future work should investigate if the newly written items can be added to the CPIB. The concepts and the themes can be used in designing and delivering a participation-focused intervention for this population.

An extension MID credibility item addressing construct proximity is a reliable alternative to correlation item

OBJECTIVE

To extend the anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) credibility instrument by adding an item addressing construct proximity as the alternative to the correlation item.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The credibility instrument includes one core items addressing the correlation between the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the anchor. However, the majority of MID studies in the literature fail to report the correlation. As an alternative item, we added a subjective assessment of similarity of the constructs (i.e., construct proximity) between the PROM and anchor and generated principles for the assessment. We sampled 101 MIDs and analyzed the assessments performed by each pair of raters. By calculating weighted Cohen's kappa, we assessed the reliability of the assessments.

RESULTS

Construct proximity assessment is based on the anticipated association between the anchor and PROM constructs: the closer the anticipated association, the higher the rating. Our detailed principles address the most frequently used anchors: transition ratings, measures of satisfaction, other PROMs, and clinical measures. The assessments showed acceptable agreement (weighted kappa 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94) between raters.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of a reported correlation coefficient, construct proximity assessment provides a useful alternative in the credibility assessment of anchor-based MID estimates.

Responsiveness and Minimal Important Change of the PROMIS Pain Interference Item Bank in Patients Presented in Musculoskeletal Practice

We evaluated the responsiveness of the Patient Reported Outcome Information System Pain Interference item bank in patients with musculoskeletal pain by testing predefined hypotheses about the relationship between the change scores on the item bank, change scores on legacy instruments and Global Ratings of Change (GRoC), and we estimated Minimal Important Change (MIC). Patients answered the full Dutch-Flemish V1.1 item bank. From the responses we derived scores for the standard 8-item short form (SF8a) and a CAT-score was simulated. Correlations between the change scores on the item bank, GRoC and legacy instruments were calculated, together with Effect Sizes, Standardized Response Means, and Area Under the Curve. GRoC were used as an anchor for estimating the MIC with (adjusted) predictive modeling. Of 1,677 patients answering baseline questionnaires 960 completed follow-up questionnaires at 3 months. The item bank correlated moderately high with the GRoC (Spearman's rho 0.63) and with the legacy instruments (Pearson's R ranging from .45 to .68). It showed a high ES (.97) and Standardized Response Means (.71), and could distinguish well between improved and not improved patients based on the GRoC (Area Under the Curve .77). Comparable results were found for the derived SF8a and CAT-scores. The MIC was estimated to be 3.2 (CI 2.6-3.7) T-score points. PERSPECTIVE: Our study supports the responsiveness of the PROMIS-PI item bank in patients with musculoskeletal complaints. Almost all predefined hypotheses were met (94%). The PROMIS-PI item bank correlated well with several legacy instruments which supports generic use of the item bank. MIC for PROMIS-PI was estimated to be 3.2 T-score points.

Development of a standard set of PROs and generic PROMs for Dutch medical specialist care : Recommendations from the Outcome-Based Healthcare Program Working Group Generic PROMs

PURPOSE

The added value of measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for delivering patient-centered care and assessment of healthcare quality is increasingly evident. However, healthcare system wide data collection initiatives are hampered by the proliferation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and conflicting data collection standards. As part of a national initiative of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport we developed a consensus-based standard set of generic PROs and PROMs to be implemented across Dutch medical specialist care.

METHODS

A working group of mandated representatives of umbrella organizations involved in Dutch medical specialist care, together with PROM experts and patient organizations worked through a structured, consensus-driven co-creation process. This included literature reviews, online expert and working group meetings, and feedback from national patient- and umbrella organizations. The 'PROM-cycle' methodology was used to select feasible, valid, and reliable PROMs to obtain domain scores for each of the PROs included in the set.

RESULTS

Eight PROs across different domains of health were ultimately endorsed: symptoms (pain & fatigue), functioning (physical, social/participation, mental [anxiety & depression]), and overarching (quality of life & perceived overall health). A limited number of generic PROMs was endorsed. PROMIS short forms were selected as the preferred instruments for all PROs. Several recommendations were formulated to facilitate healthcare system level adoption and implementation of the standard set.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a consensus-based standard set of Generic PROMs and a set of recommendations to facilitate healthcare system wide implementation across Dutch medical specialist care.

Validation of an Announced Telephone Pill Count Compared to a Home-Visit Pill Count in People With Type 2 Diabetes or Cardiovascular Disease

We aimed to assess the validity of an announced telephone pill count in people with type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease by comparing this method to a home-visit pill count. We also assessed whether a second telephone pill count improved accuracy. People aged ≥35 years using oral type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease medication were included. Thirty-four participants completed a telephone pill count followed by a home-visit pill count, and a subsample of this population (n = 11) completed a second telephone pill count. Scatterplots were used for a visual representation of the number of pills counted with both methods, intraclass correlation coefficients for agreement, and Bland-Altman plots for absolute differences and outliers. A total of 203 pill counts were conducted. The study population consisted of 53% men, with a mean age of 69.6 (±9.2) years and an average of 6.1 (±2.8) medication prescriptions per participant. Scatterplots showed that pills counted with both methods were mostly scattered around the y = x equation. Agreement between the first telephone pill count and home-visit pill count was high, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.96 (medication count level) and 0.98 (individual level). No learning effects were observed in the subsample (n = 11), the intraclass correlation coefficient for the first telephone pill count was 0.88 versus 0.89 for the second telephone pill count. Bland-Altman plots indicated high agreement between the two methods. An announced telephone pill count is considered a valid alternative for a home-visit pill count in people with type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease. A single pill count appears sufficient.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

IMPORTANCE

Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists.

OBJECTIVE

To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols.

FINDINGS

The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

IMPORTANCE

Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports.

FINDINGS

The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Validation of the Dutch Version of the BODY-Q Measuring Appearance, Health-related Quality of Life, and Experience of Healthcare in Patients Undergoing Bariatric and Body Contouring Surgery

Background

The BODY-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) developed for use in bariatric and body contouring surgery.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the BODY-Q.

Methods

The BODY-Q consists of 163 items in 21 independently functioning scales that measure appearance, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and experience of care. The data used to validate the Dutch BODY-Q were provided by two prospective multicenter cohort studies across three hospitals in the Netherlands. The BODY-Q was administered before and after surgery at 3 or 4 months and 12 months. Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was used to evaluate the BODY-Q for targeting, category threshold order, Rasch model fit, Person Separation Index (PSI), and differential item functioning (DIF) by language (original English data versus Dutch data).

Results

Data were collected between January 2016 and May 2019. A total of 876 participants were included in the study who provided 1614 assessments. Validity was supported by three RMT findings: most scales showed good targeting, 160/163 (98.2%) items evidenced ordered thresholds, and 142/163 (87.1%) items fit to the RMT model. Reliability was high with PSI values &gt;0.70 for 19/21 scales. There was negligible influence of DIF by language on person item locations and the scales scoring.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the Dutch BODY-Q for use in bariatric and body contouring patients in the Netherlands. The Dutch BODY-Q can be used in (inter)national research and clinical practice.

Vitiligo International Task force for an Agreed List of core data (VITAL): study protocol of a vitiligo core outcome set (COS) and contextual factors for clinical trials, registries, and clinical practice

Background

There is a lack of consensus related to the collection of standardized data for individuals with vitiligo enrolled in clinical trials and registries as well as those seen in clinical practice which causes difficulty in accurately interpreting, comparing, and pooling of data.

Several years ago, efforts to initiate work on developing core outcome sets were performed and a consensus was reached in 2015 on the first core domain set for vitiligo clinical trials.

Methods/design

This project aims to further develop a core outcome set for vitiligo clinical trials as well as create internationally agreed-upon core outcome sets for registries and clinical practice. These core outcome sets will include a core domain set and a core measurement instruments set and will be supplemented by contextual factors, including baseline and treatment-related characteristics. In a preparatory exercise, the 2015 core domain set will be re-evaluated and will serve as the basis for the list of outcome domains used to initiate the consensus process. This project will consist of two parts. Part 1 will focus on the selection of a core domain set, or “what to measure” and contextual factors, for each setting based on electronic surveys (e-Delphi technique) and a conclusive consensus meeting by a large group of international stakeholders. Part 2 will include selection of core measurement instruments, or “how to measure,” and measurement details (e.g., scale and timing) for the core domain sets and contextual factors agreed upon in part 1. Part 2 will be based on consensus meetings with stakeholders involved in part 1 and will be guided by C3 (CHORD-COUSIN Collaboration), Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME), COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) recommendations including information on measurement properties of available instruments (systematic review and expert/patient opinion). At the end of part 2, all stakeholders involved will be invited to participate in a final meeting in which the ultimate core data sets (core outcome sets and contextual factors) will be presented and the dissemination plan and implementation goals will be defined.

Discussion

This project will harmonize data collection between clinical trials, registries, and clinical practices, facilitating new insights in vitiligo.

Trial registration

This study is registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database and on the C3 (CHORD-COUSIN Collaboration) website.

Measurement properties and interpretability of the PROMIS item banks in stroke patients: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Both the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement and the National Institutes of Health recommend the use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) measures in clinical care and research for stroke patients. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the measurement properties and interpretability of PROMIS measures in stroke patients.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched from January 1st, 2007 till April 12th, 2021 for studies concerning the measurement properties and interpretability of PROMIS measures in stroke patients. The findings of these studies were analyzed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

RESULTS

Ten studies were included. The PROMIS Global Health was studied the most: its two subscales had sufficient structural validity in one study of very good quality, sufficient construct validity with > 75% of hypotheses tested confirmed (high GRADE rating), sufficient internal consistency, i.e. α ≥ 0.70 in two studies (high GRADE rating), sufficient reliability, i.e. ICC ≥ 0.70 in one study of doubtful quality, and indeterminate responsiveness in one study of inadequate quality. For other PROMIS measures, the measurement properties and interpretability were limitedly studied.

CONCLUSION

The PROMIS Global Health showed sufficient structural and construct validity and internal consistency in stroke patients. There is a need for further research on content validity, structural validity, and measurement invariance of PROMIS measures in stroke patients. Trial Registration Information: CRD42020203044 (PROSPERO).

Identifying common core outcome domains from core outcome sets of musculoskeletal conditions: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets (COSs) aim to reduce outcome heterogeneity in clinical practice and research by suggesting a minimum number of agreed-upon outcomes in clinical trials. Most COSs in the musculoskeletal field are developed for specific conditions. We propose that there are likely to be common core domains within existing musculoskeletal COSs that may be used as a starting point in the development of future COSs. We aim to identify common core domains from existing COSs and to facilitate the development of new COSs for musculoskeletal conditions. As a secondary aim, we will assess the development quality of these COSs.

METHODS

A systematic review including musculoskeletal COSs. We will search Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Methodology Register and International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement (ICHOM). Studies will be included if related to the development of a COS in adults with musculoskeletal conditions and for any type of intervention. Quality will be assessed using the Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. Data extracted will include scope of the COS, health condition, interventions and outcome domains. Primary outcomes will be all core domains recommended within each COS. We define a common core outcome domain as one present in at least 67% of all COSs. All findings will be summarized and presented using descriptive statistics.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review of COSs will describe the core domains recommended within each musculoskeletal COS. Common domains found may be used in the initial stages of development of future musculoskeletal COSs.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021239141.

Patient-reported outcome measures for assessing health-related quality of life in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are important tools to assess outcomes relevant to patients, with Health-Related Quality Of Life (HRQOL) as an important construct to be measured. Many different HRQOL PROMs are used in the type 2 diabetes field, however a complete overview of these PROMs is currently lacking. We therefore aimed to systematically describe and classify the content of all PROMs that have specifically been developed or validated to measure (aspects of) HRQOL in people with type 2 diabetes. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE until 31 December 2021. Studies on the development or validation of a PROM measuring HRQOL, or aspects of HRQOL, in people with type 2 diabetes were included. Title and abstract and full-text screening were conducted by two independent researchers and data extraction was performed independently by one of the researchers. Data were extracted on language in which the PROM was developed, target population, construct(s) being measured, names of (sub)scales and number of items per (sub)scale. In addition, all PROMs and subscales were classified according to specific aspects of HRQOL based on the Wilson & Cleary model (symptom status, functional status, general health perceptions) to aid researchers in PROM selection. In total 220 studies were identified that developed or validated PROMs that measure (aspects of) HRQOL in people with type 2 diabetes. Of the 116 unique HRQOL PROMs, 91 (of the subscales) measured symptom status, 60 measured functional status and 26 measured general health perceptions. In addition, 16 of the PROMs (subscales) measured global quality of life. 61 of the 116 PROMs (subscales) also include characteristics of the individual (e.g. aspects of personality, coping) or environment (e.g. social or financial support) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs, e.g. measure of a patient's perception of their personal experience of the healthcare they have received, e.g. treatment satisfaction), which are not part of the HRQOL construct. Only 9 of the 116 PROMs measure all aspects of HRQOL based on the Wilson & Cleary model. Finally, 8 of the 116 PROMs stating to measure HRQOL, measured no HRQOL construct. In conclusion, a large number of PROMs are available for people with type 2 diabetes, which intend to measure (aspects of) HRQOL. These PROMs measure a large variety of (sub)constructs, which are not all HRQOL constructs, with a small amount of PROMs not measuring HRQOL at all. There is a need for consensus on which aspects of HRQOL should be measured in people with type 2 diabetes and which PROMs to use in research and daily practice. PROSPERO: CRD42017071012. COMET database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/956 .

Measuring sleep health in primary school-aged children: A systematic review of instruments and their content validity

Study Objectives

This review aimed to summarize instruments that measure one or more domains of sleep health (i.e. duration, quality, efficiency, timing, daytime sleepiness and sleep-related behaviors) in a general population of 4–12-year old children, and to assess these instruments’ content validity. Other measurement properties were evaluated for instruments with indications of sufficient content validity.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and EmBase. Methodological quality, content validity, and other measurement properties were assessed via the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Instruments with indications of sufficient content validity (i.e. relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility) were further evaluated on other measurement properties (i.e. other aspects of validity, reliability, responsiveness). A modified GRADE approach was applied to determine the quality of evidence.

Results

Twenty instruments, containing 36 subscales, were included. None of the instruments measured all sleep health domains. For five (subscales of) instruments sufficient relevance and comprehensibility was found. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. For these five instruments all additional measurement properties were assessed. Sufficient results were found for structural validity (n = 1), internal consistency (n = 1), and construct validity (n = 1), with quality of evidence ranging from very low to high.

Conclusions

Several (subscales of) instruments measuring domains of child sleep health showed good promise, demonstrating sufficient relevance, comprehensibility, and some also sufficient results on other measurement properties. However, more high quality studies on instrument development and the evaluation of measurement properties are required.

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021224109

Content Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Developed for Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aimed to systematically evaluate the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) specifically developed to measure (aspects of) health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review was performed in PubMed and Embase of PROMs measuring perceived symptoms, physical function, mental function, social function/participation, and general health perceptions, and that were validated to at least some extent. Content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) was evaluated using COSMIN methodology.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified 54 (different versions of) PROMs, containing 150 subscales. We found evidence for sufficient content validity for only 41/150 (27%) (subscales of) PROMs. The quality of evidence was generally very low. We found 66 out of 150 (44%) (subscales of) PROMs with evidence for either insufficient relevance, insufficient comprehensiveness, or insufficient comprehensibility. For measuring diabetes-specific symptoms, physical function, mental function, social function/participation, and general health perceptions, we identified one to 11 (subscales of) PROMs with sufficient content validity, although quality of the evidence was generally low. For measuring depressive symptoms, no PROM with sufficient content validity was identified. For each aspect of HRQL, we found at least one PROM with sufficient content validity, except for depressive symptoms. The quality of the evidence was mostly very low.

Determining the Minimal Important Change of Everyday Functioning in Dementia: Pursuing Clinical Meaningfulness

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Decline in everyday functioning is a key clinical change in Alzheimer disease and related disorders (ADRD). An important challenge remains the determination of what constitutes a clinically meaningful change in everyday functioning. We aimed to investigate this by establishing the minimal important change (MIC): the smallest amount of change that has a meaningful effect on patients' lives. We retrospectively investigated meaningful change in a memory clinic cohort.

METHODS

In the first, qualitative part of the study, community-recruited informal caregivers of patients with ADRD and memory clinic clinicians completed a survey in which they judged various situations representing changes in everyday functioning. Their judgments of meaningful change were used to determine thresholds for MIC, both for decline and improvement, on the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Questionnaire. In the second, quantitative part, we applied these values in an independent longitudinal cohort study of unselected memory clinic patients.

RESULTS

MIC thresholds were established at the average threshold of caregivers (N = 1,629; 62.4 ± 9.5 years; 77% female) and clinicians (N = 13): -2.2 points for clinically meaningful decline and +5.0 points for clinically meaningful improvement. Memory clinic patients (N = 230; 64.3 ± 7.7 years; 39% female; 60% dementia diagnosis) were followed for 1 year, 102 (45%) of whom showed a decline larger than the MIC, after a mean of 6.7 ± 3.5 months. Patients with a dementia diagnosis and more atrophy of the medial temporal lobe had larger odds (odds ratio [OR] = 3.4, 95% CI [1.5-7.8] and OR = 5.0, 95% CI [1.2-20.0], respectively) for passing the MIC threshold for decline than those with subjective cognitive complaints and no atrophy.

DISCUSSION

We were able to operationalize clinically meaningful decline in IADL by determining the MIC. The usefulness of the MIC was supported by our findings from the clinical sample that nearly half of a sample of unselected memory clinic patients showed a meaningful decline in less than a year. Disease stage and medial temporal atrophy were predictors of functional decline greater than the MIC. Our findings provide guidance in interpreting changes in IADL and may help evaluate treatment effects and monitor disease progression.

Towards standardization of measuring anxiety and depression: Differential item functioning for language and Dutch reference values of PROMIS item banks

Introduction

The outcomes anxiety and depression are measured frequently by healthcare providers to assess the impact of a disease, but with numerous instruments. PROMIS item banks provide an opportunity for standardized measurement. Cross-cultural validity of measures and the availability of reference values are prerequisites for standardized measurement.

Methods

PROMIS Anxiety and Depression item banks were completed by 1002 representative Dutch persons. To evaluate cross-cultural validity, data from US participants in PROMIS wave 1 were used and differential item functioning (DIF) was investigated, using an iterative hybrid of logistic regression and item response theory. McFadden’s pseudo R²-change of 2% was the critical threshold. The impact of any DIF on full item banks and short forms was investigated. To obtain Dutch reference values, T-scores for anxiety and depression were calculated for the complete Dutch sample, and age-group and gender subpopulations. Thresholds corresponding to normal limits, mild, moderate and severe symptoms were computed.

Results

In both item banks, two items had DIF but with minimal impact on population level T-scores for full item banks and short forms. The Dutch general population had a T-score of 49.9 for anxiety and 49.6 for depression, similar to the T-scores of 50.0 of the US general population. T-scores for age-group and gender subpopulations were also similar to T-scores of the US general population. Thresholds for mild, moderate and severe anxiety and depression were set to 55, 60 and 70, identical to US thresholds.

Conclusions

The limited number of items with DIF and its minimal impact, enables the use of standard (US) item parameters and comparisons of scores between Dutch and US populations. The Dutch reference values provide an important tool for healthcare professionals and researchers to evaluate and interpret symptoms of anxiety and depression, stimulating the uptake of PROMIS measures, and contributing to standardized outcome measurement.

Outcomes of the first global multidisciplinary consensus meeting including persons living with obesity to standardize patient-reported outcome measurement in obesity treatment research

Quality of life is a key outcome that is not rigorously measured in obesity treatment research due to the lack of standardization of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs). The S.Q.O.T. initiative was founded to Standardize Quality of life measurement in Obesity Treatment. A first face-to-face, international, multidisciplinary consensus meeting was conducted to identify the key PROs and preferred PROMs for obesity treatment research. It comprised of 35 people living with obesity (PLWO) and healthcare providers (HCPs). Formal presentations, nominal group techniques, and modified Delphi exercises were used to develop consensus-based recommendations. The following eight PROs were considered important: self-esteem, physical health/functioning, mental/psychological health, social health, eating, stigma, body image, and excess skin. Self-esteem was considered the most important PRO, particularly for PLWO, while physical health was perceived to be the most important among HCPs. For each PRO, one or more PROMs were selected, except for stigma. This consensus meeting was a first step toward standardizing PROs (what to measure) and PROMs (how to measure) in obesity treatment research. It provides an overview of the key PROs and a first selection of the PROMs that can be used to evaluate these PROs.

Validity and reliability of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) using Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) has been recommended for computerized adaptive testing (CAT) of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). This study compared the content, validity and reliability of seven PROMIS CATs to the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

Adult CKD patients with an eGFR < 30 ml/min.1.73m2 not receiving dialysis treatment completed seven PROMIS CATs (assessing physical function, pain interference, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, and ability to participate in social roles and activities), the SF-12 and, additionally, the PROMIS Pain Intensity single item and Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI) at inclusion and 2-weeks. A content comparison was performed between PROMIS CATs and SF-12. Construct validity of PROMIS CATs was assessed using Pearson's correlations. Test-retest reliability of all patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was assessed by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC).

RESULTS

In total, 207 patients participated in the study. A median of 45 items (10 minutes) was completed for PROMIS CATs. All PROMIS CATs showed evidence for sufficient construct validity. PROMIS CATs, most SF-12 domains and summary scores, and DSI showed sufficient test-retest reliability (ICC ≥ 0.70). PROMIS CATs had a lower MDC compared to the SF-12 (5.7-7.4 compared to 11.2-21.7 across domains, respectively).

CONCLUSION

PROMIS CATs showed sufficient construct validity and test-retest reliability in patients with advanced CKD. PROMIS CATs required more items but showed better reliability than the SF-12. Future research is needed to investigate the feasibility of PROMIS CATs for routine nephrology care.

Measurement properties of the Dutch PROMIS-29 v2.1 profile in people with and without chronic conditions

PURPOSE

To investigate the structural validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance, and construct validity of the Dutch PROMIS-29 v2.1 profile, including seven physical (e.g., pain, physical function), mental (e.g., depression, anxiety), and social (e.g., role functioning) domains of health, in a Dutch general population sample including subsamples with and without chronic diseases.

METHODS

The PROMIS-29 was completed by 63,602 participants from the Lifelines cohort study. Structural validity of the PROMIS-29, including unidimensionality of each domain and the physical and mental health summary scores, was evaluated using factor analyses (criteria: CFI ≥ 0.95, TLI ≥ 0.95, RMSEA ≤ 0.06, SRMR ≤ 0.08). Internal consistency, measurement invariance (no differential item functioning (DIF) for age, gender, administration mode, educational level, ethnicity, chronic diseases), and construct validity (hypotheses on known-groups validity and correlations between domains) were assessed per domain.

RESULTS

The factor structure of the seven domains was supported (CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.993, RMSEA = 0.046, SRMR = 0.031) as was unidimensionality of each domain, both in the entire sample and the subsamples. Model fit of the physical and mental health summary scores reached the criteria, and scoring coefficients were obtained. Cronbach's alpha for the seven PROMIS-29 domains ranged from 0.75 to 0.96 in the complete sample. No DIF was detected. Of the predefined hypotheses, 78% could be confirmed.

CONCLUSION

Sufficient structural validity, internal consistency and measurement invariance were found, both in the entire sample and in subsamples with and without chronic diseases. Requirements for sufficient evidence for construct validity were (almost) met for most subscales. Future studies should investigate test-retest reliability, measurement error, and responsiveness of the PROMIS-29.

Psychometric properties and CAT performance of the PROMIS pediatric sleep disturbance, sleep-related impairment, and fatigue item banks in Dutch children and adolescents

This study's aim is to evaluate the psychometric properties of the pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) sleep disturbance (SD), sleep-related impairment (SRI), and fatigue item banks in Dutch children and adolescents since they are yet to be validated in this population. Children and adolescents aged 8-18 years old (n = 1,325), representative of the Dutch general population, were invited. The following psychometric properties of both item banks were assessed: structural validity by fitting a graded response model (GRM) for which assumptions were checked and assessing item fit, reliability, and efficiency for the full-length item bank, short forms, and computerized adaptive test (CAT). Mean T scores and cutoff scores for mild, moderate, and severe scores were determined. A total of 527 children (response rate 39.7%) were included. SD did not meet the assumption of unidimensionality. The SRI and fatigue item banks showed sufficient structural validity. Three items showed GRM misfit; SRI item w026c and fatigue items 3224R1r and 4191R1r. Both item banks measured reliable (> .90) at the mean of the population and 2SD in the clinical direction. CATs outperformed short forms in efficiency. Mean T scores for the Dutch population were: SRI 47.5 (SD = 10.0) and fatigue 39.8 (SD = 12.4). Cutoffs included SRI minimal ≥ 34.7, moderate ≥ 55.6, severe ≥ 63.2 and fatigue minimal ≥ 23.9, moderate ≥ 49.9, severe ≥ 61.3. PROMIS pediatric SRI and fatigue item banks, short forms, and CAT showed sufficient structural validity and reliability in the Dutch population. Dutch reference values are provided. More research is needed for the PROMIS SD item bank. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Study protocol for developing, piloting and disseminating the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline: a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools in the evidence-based selection of these instruments. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) has developed a comprehensive and widespread guideline to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, but key information is often missing in published reviews. This hinders the appraisal of the quality of outcome measurement instruments, impacts the decisions of knowledge users regarding their appropriateness, and compromises reproducibility and interpretability of the reviews' findings. To facilitate sufficient, transparent, and consistent reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guideline will be developed: the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline.

METHODS

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be developed in accordance with recommendations for reporting guideline development from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. First, a candidate reporting item list will be created through an environmental literature scan and expert consultations. Second, an international Delphi study will be conducted with systematic review authors, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, psychometricians/clinimetricians, reporting guideline developers, journal editors as well as patients, caregivers, and members of the public. Delphi panelists will rate candidate items for inclusion on a 5-point scale, suggest additional candidate items, and give feedback on item wording and comprehensibility. Third, the draft PRISMA-COSMIN guideline and user manual will be iteratively piloted by applying it to systematic reviews in several disease areas to assess its relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, along with usability and user satisfaction. Fourth, a consensus meeting will be held to finalize the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline through roundtable discussions and voting. Last, a user manual will be developed and the final PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be disseminated through publications, conferences, newsletters, and relevant websites. Additionally, relevant journals and organizations will be invited to endorse and implement PRISMA-COSMIN. Throughout the project, evaluations will take place to identify barriers and facilitators of involving patient/public partners and employing a virtual process.

DISCUSSION

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will ensure that the reports of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are complete and informative, enhancing their reproducibility, ease of use, and uptake.

Systematic review on the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes

We aimed to systematically assess the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning, one of the core outcomes, in adults with type 2 diabetes.We performed a systematic literature search for PROMs or subscales measuring physical function that were validated to at least some extent in EMBASE and MEDLINE. Measurement properties were evaluated according to the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs.In total 21 articles were included, describing 12 versions of 7 unique diabetes-specific PROMs or subscales measuring physical functioning. In general, there were few high-quality studies on measurement properties of PROMs measuring physical functioning in adults with type 2 diabetes. The Dependence/Daily Life subscale of the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale-Short Form (DFS-SF) and the Impact of Weight on Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (IWADL) were most extensively evaluated. Both had sufficient ratings for aspects of content validity, although with mostly very low-quality evidence. Sufficient ratings for structural validity, internal consistency, and reliability were also found for both instruments, but responsiveness was rated inconsistent for both instruments. The other PROMs or subscales often had insufficient aspects of content validity, or their unidimensionality could not be confirmed.This systematic review showed that the Dependence/Daily Life subscale of the DFS-SF and the IWADL could be used to measure physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes in research or clinical practice, while keeping the limitations of these instruments in mind. The measurement properties that have not been evaluated extensively for these PROMs should be evaluated in future studies.The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database, number CRD42021234890.

Giving meaning to the scores of the Amsterdam instrumental activities of daily living questionnaire: a qualitative study

Background

Everyday functioning is a clinically relevant concept in dementia, yet little is known about the clinical meaningfulness of scores on functional outcome measures. We aimed to establish clinically meaningful scoring categories for the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (A-IADL-Q), representing no, mild, moderate and severe problems in daily functioning.

Methods

Informal caregivers (n = 6) of memory-clinic patients and clinicians (n = 13), including neurologists and nurse specialists, working at various memory clinics in The Netherlands. In focus groups, participants individually ranked nine summaries of fictional patients from least to most impairment in daily functioning. Then, they placed bookmarks to demarcate the thresholds for mild, moderate and severe problems. Individual bookmark placements were then discussed to reach consensus. Clinicians completed a survey in which they placed bookmarks, individually.

Results

While individual categorizations varied somewhat, caregivers and clinicians generally agreed on the thresholds, particularly about the distinction between ‘no’ and ‘mild’ problems. Score categories were no problems (T-score ≥ 60), mild problems (T-score 50–59), moderate problems (T-score 40–49), and severe problems in daily functioning (T-score < 40), on a scale ranging 20–80.

Conclusions

Our findings provide categories for determining the level of functional impairment, which can facilitate interpretation of A-IADL-Q scores. These categories can subsequently be used by clinicians to improve communication with patients and caregivers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12955-022-01958-2.

The use of PROMIS measures in clinical research in stroke patients, a systematic literature review

Objective

To systematically describe the use and outcomes of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in clinical studies in populations with stroke.

Data Sources

A systematic search on the use of PROMIS measures in clinical stroke studies in 9 electronic databases.

Study Selection

Studies had to be original, reporting on outcome data using PROMIS measures in populations with stroke (ischemic and/or hemorrhagic), from January 1st, 2007. Initially, 174 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. In 2 steps, titles, abstracts and full-text articles were screened for eligibility (2 authors independently).

Data Extraction

From the selected articles, study characteristics, type of PROMIS measures, and its outcomes were extracted by 2 authors independently. The authors discussed their views to achieve consensus. A third author was consulted if necessary.

Data Synthesis

In total, 27 studies (24,366 patients) were included, predominantly from the United States (22); most study populations were hospital-based (20); the number of patients ranged from 30-3283. In general, patients had no or mild symptoms (median modified Rankin scale 1). Two different generic PROMIS measures were reported (PROMIS Global Health, PROMIS 29) and 9 PROMIS measures focusing on specific domains (sleep, pain, physical functioning, self-efficacy, satisfaction with social roles, depression, anxiety, cognition, fatigue). These match the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) domains mentioned in the Core Set for Stroke. The measures were administered 1-55 months after stroke. Outcome data are provided. Pooling of data was not achieved because of a large variety in study characteristics (inclusion criteria, follow-up moments, data processing).

Conclusions

The PROMIS measures in this review could be relevant from a patient's perspective, covering ICF core set domains for patients with stroke. The large variety in study characteristics hampers comparisons across populations. Many different outcome measures are used to report results of stroke rehabilitation studies.

Present state bias in transition ratings was accurately estimated in simulated and real data

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported transition ratings are supposed to reflect the change between a previous baseline health state and a present follow-up state, but may reflect the present state to a greater extent. This so-called 'present state bias' (PSB) potentially threatens the validity of transition ratings. Several criteria have been proposed to assess PSB. We examined how well these criteria perform and to which extent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for categorical data provides an accurate assessment of the degree of PSB.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We simulated a multiple samples with baseline and follow-up item responses to a hypothetical questionnaire, and transition ratings. The samples varied with respect to various distributional characteristics and the degree of PSB. The performance of criteria proposed in the literature, and a new CFA-based criterion, were evaluated by the proportion of explained variance in PSB. In addition, four real datasets were analyzed.

RESULTS

The known criteria explained 36-74% of the variance in PSB. A new CFA-based criterion, namely the ratio of the factor loadings of the transition ratings plus one, explained 81-98% of the variance in PSB across the samples.

CONCLUSION

Present state bias in transition ratings can be estimated accurately using CFA.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Yearly Imaging Surveillance in Patients Following Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Little is known about the impact of standardized imaging surveillance on anxiety levels and well-being of patients after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). We hypothesize that patient anxiety levels increase just before receiving the imaging results compared with standard anxiety levels.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study from November 2018 to May 2020 including post-EVAR patients visiting the outpatient clinics of 4 Dutch hospitals for imaging follow-up. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was used. Patients completed the PROMIS Anxiety v1.0 Short Form (SF) 4a, PROMIS-Global Health Scale v1.2, and PROMIS-Physical Function v1.2 SF8b at 2 time points: prior to the result of the imaging study (T1: pre-visit) and 6-8 months later (T2: reference measurement). Mean T-scores at T1 were compared to T2, and T2 to the general 65+ Dutch population.

RESULTS

Altogether 342 invited patients were eligible, 214 completed the first questionnaire, 189 returned 2 completed questionnaires and 128 patients did not participate. Out of 214 respondents, 195 were male (91.1%) and the mean (standard deviation) age was 75.2 (7.0) years. There were no significant differences between T1 and T2 in anxiety levels (0.48; 95% confidence interval[CI] -0.42-1.38), global mental health (0.27; 95% CI -0.79-0.84), global physical health (0.10; 95% CI -0.38-1.18) and physical function (0.53; 95% CI -0.26-1.32). Compared with the 65+ Dutch population, at T2 patients experienced more anxiety (3.8; 95% CI 2.96-5.54), had worse global physical health (-3.2; 95% CI -4.38 - -2.02) and physical function (-2.4; 95% CI -4.00 - -0.80). Global mental health was similar (-1.0; 95% CI -2.21 - 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Post-EVAR patients do not experience more anxiety just before receiving surveillance imaging results than outside this period, but do suffer from more anxiety and worse physical outcomes than the 65+ Dutch population.

Validation of PROMIS Profile-29 in adults with hemophilia in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Profile-29 questionnaire is widely used worldwide, but it has not yet been validated in the Netherlands, nor in persons with hemophilia.

OBJECTIVE

To validate the Dutch-Flemish version of the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.01 in adults with hemophilia.

METHODS

Dutch males with hemophilia (all severities) completed questionnaires that contained sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, the PROMIS-29, RAND-36, and the Hemophilia Activities List (HAL). Structural validity of each subscale was assessed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency was calculated for each subscale with sufficient model fit in CFA. Construct validity was assessed by testing hypotheses about (1) correlations of each PROMIS-29 subscale with corresponding scales of RAND-36 and domains of HAL, and (2) mean differences in T-scores between subgroups with different hemophilia severities, self-reported joint impairment, and HIV infection status. We considered ≥75% of data in accordance with the hypotheses evidence for construct validity.

RESULTS

In total, 770 persons with hemophilia participated in this cross-sectional study. CFA revealed sufficient structural validity for five subscales: Physical Function, Depression, Sleep Disturbance, Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities, and Pain Interference. Internal consistency was high and Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.79 for Sleep Disturbance to 0.96 for Pain Interference. Differences between clinical subgroups were in the expected direction. Construct validity was confirmed for Physical Function, Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, and Pain Intensity.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed sufficient evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity for most PROMIS Profile-29 subscales among people with hemophilia in the Netherlands.

Is There An Association Between Bundled Payments and "Cherry Picking" and "Lemon Dropping" in Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure?

METHODS

This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.

Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals

OBJECTIVES

To examine current practices in late-phase trials published in major medical journals and examine trialists' views about core outcome set (COS) use.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A sequential multi-methods study was conducted. We examined late-phase trials published between October 2019 and March 2020 in JAMA, NEJM, The Lancet, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine. The COMET database was searched for COS potentially relevant to trials not reporting using a COS; overlap of trial and COS outcomes was examined. An online survey examined awareness of, and decisions to search for and use a COS.

RESULTS

Ninety-five trials were examined; 93 (98%) did not report using a COS. Relevant COS were identified for 31 trials (33%). Core outcomes were measured in 9 (23%) studies; all trials measured at least one core outcome. Thirty-one trialists (33%) completed our survey. The most common barrier to COS use was trialist's own outcome preferences and choice (68%). The most common perceived facilitator was awareness and knowledge about COS (90%).

CONCLUSION

COS use in this cohort of trials was low, even when relevant COS were available. Increased use of COS in clinical trials can improve evaluation of intervention effects and evidence synthesis and reduce research waste.

Psychometric properties of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system scale v1.2: global health (PROMIS-GH) in a Dutch general population

Purpose

To assess the psychometric properties of the Dutch-Flemish Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Scale v1.2 – Global Health (PROMIS-GH).

Methods

The PROMIS-GH (also referred to as PROMIS-10) was administered to 4370 persons from the Dutch general population. Unidimensionality (CFI ≥ 0.95; TLI ≥ 0.95; RMSEA ≤ 0.06; SRMR ≤ 0.08), local independence (residual correlations < 0.20), monotonicity (H > 0.30), model fit with the Graded Response Model (GRM, p < 0.001), internal consistency (alpha > 0.75), precision (total score information across the latent trait), measurement invariance (no Differential Item Functioning [DIF]), and cross-cultural validity (no DIF for language, Dutch vs. United States English) of its subscales, composed of four items each, Global Mental Health (GMH) and Global Physical Health (GPH), were assessed.

Results

Confirmatory factor analyses, on both subscales, revealed slight departures from unidimensionality for GMH (CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.22; SRMR = 0.04) and GPH (CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.12; SRMR = 0.03). Local independence, monotonicity, GRM model fit, internal consistency, precision and cross-cultural validity were supported. However, Global10 (emotional problems) showed misfit on the GMH subscale, while Global08 (fatigue) presented DIF for age.

Conclusion

The psychometric properties of the PROMIS-GH in the Dutch population were considered acceptable. Sufficient local independence, monotonicity, GRM fit, internal consistency, measurement invariance and cross-cultural validity were found. If future studies find similar results, structural validity of the GMH could be enhanced by improving or replacing Global10 (emotional problems).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12955-021-01855-0.