Suppr超能文献

专业发展:严谨的定性研究是关键基础。

PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation.

机构信息

Mapi Values, Boston, MA, USA.

出版信息

Qual Life Res. 2010 Oct;19(8):1087-96. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9677-6. Epub 2010 May 30.

Abstract

Recently published articles have described criteria to assess qualitative research in the health field in general, but very few articles have delineated qualitative methods to be used in the development of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). In fact, how PROs are developed with subject input through focus groups and interviews has been given relatively short shrift in the PRO literature when compared to the plethora of quantitative articles on the psychometric properties of PROs. If documented at all, most PRO validation articles give little for the reader to evaluate the content validity of the measures and the credibility and trustworthiness of the methods used to develop them. Increasingly, however, scientists and authorities want to be assured that PRO items and scales have meaning and relevance to subjects. This article was developed by an international, interdisciplinary group of psychologists, psychometricians, regulatory experts, a physician, and a sociologist. It presents rigorous and appropriate qualitative research methods for developing PROs with content validity. The approach described combines an overarching phenomenological theoretical framework with grounded theory data collection and analysis methods to yield PRO items and scales that have content validity.

摘要

最近发表的文章描述了一般健康领域评估定性研究的标准,但很少有文章描述用于开发患者报告结局(PRO)的定性方法。事实上,与大量关于 PRO 心理测量特性的定量文章相比,通过焦点小组和访谈让受试者参与来开发 PRO 的方法在 PRO 文献中受到的关注相对较少。如果有记录的话,大多数 PRO 验证文章几乎没有让读者评估测量的内容效度以及开发这些方法的可信度和可靠性。然而,越来越多的科学家和权威人士希望确信 PRO 项目和量表对受试者具有意义和相关性。本文由一组国际跨学科的心理学家、心理计量学家、监管专家、医生和社会学家共同撰写。它提出了具有内容效度的 PRO 开发的严格和适当的定性研究方法。所描述的方法将总体现象学理论框架与扎根理论数据收集和分析方法相结合,生成具有内容效度的 PRO 项目和量表。

相似文献

1
PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation.
Qual Life Res. 2010 Oct;19(8):1087-96. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9677-6. Epub 2010 May 30.
2
Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting.
Qual Life Res. 2012 Jun;21(5):739-46. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9990-8. Epub 2011 Aug 25.
6
What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures?
Value Health. 2007 Nov-Dec;10 Suppl 2:S94-S105. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.x.

引用本文的文献

3
Developing a Process for Preference Measures in Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency: Challenges and Solutions.
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2025 May 8;19:1365-1384. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S500330. eCollection 2025.
4
Evaluation of the measurement properties of online health information quality assessment tools: A systematic review.
Int J Nurs Sci. 2025 Feb 21;12(2):130-136. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2025.02.015. eCollection 2025 Mar.
6
Psychosomatic Dimensions of Rhinoplasty and Their Role in Quality of Life and Self-Care.
Maedica (Bucur). 2024 Dec;19(4):836-841. doi: 10.26574/maedica.2024.19.4.836.
7
8
Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures used following hip or knee arthroplasty: a scoping review.
Qual Life Res. 2025 May;34(5):1195-1209. doi: 10.1007/s11136-025-03899-x. Epub 2025 Jan 27.
10
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Mohs Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
OTO Open. 2024 Dec 18;8(4):e70054. doi: 10.1002/oto2.70054. eCollection 2024 Oct-Dec.

本文引用的文献

1
Discourse analysis.
BMJ. 2008 Aug 7;337:a879. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a879.
2
Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective.
Value Health. 2007 Nov-Dec;10 Suppl 2:S125-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00275.x.
3
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. Epub 2007 Sep 14.
4
FDA draft guidance and health-outcomes research.
Lancet. 2007 Feb 17;369(9561):540-2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60250-5.
6
What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality.
J Health Psychol. 2006 Sep;11(5):799-808. doi: 10.1177/1359105306066643.
7
Evolving concepts in the measurement of treatment effects.
Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2006 May;3(3):212-7. doi: 10.1513/pats.200512-128SF.
8
Using qualitative research.
Qual Health Res. 2004 Dec;14(10):1366-86. doi: 10.1177/1049732304269672.
9
Assessing fatigue in persons with cancer: an instrument development and testing study.
Cancer. 2004 Oct 1;101(7):1685-95. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20540.
10
The problem of appraising qualitative research.
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Jun;13(3):223-5. doi: 10.1136/qhc.13.3.223.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验