Macefield Rhiannon, Brookes Sara, Blazeby Jane, Avery Kerry
The MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 24;9(8):e029741. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029741.
To describe the novel concept of, and methods for developing, a 'universal-reporter' outcome measure (UROM); a single questionnaire for completion by patients and/or healthcare professionals (HCPs) when views on the same subject are required.
A mixed methods study with three phases-phase I: identification of relevant content domains from existing clinical tools, patient questionnaires and in-depth interviews with multistakeholders; phase II: item development using a novel approach that considered plain language in conjunction with medical terminology; and phase III: pretesting with multistakeholders using cognitive interviews.
A case study in surgical wound assessment undertaken in two UK hospital trusts and one university setting.
Patients who had recently undergone general abdominal surgery and healthcare professionals involved in post-surgical wound care.
Phase I: In the example case study, 19 relevant content domains were identified from two clinical tools, two patient questionnaires and 19 multistakeholder interviews (nine patients, 10 HCPs). Phase II: Domains were operationalised into items and subitems (secondary components to collect further information, if relevant). The version after pretesting had 16 items, five of which included further subitems. Plain language in conjunction with medical terminology was applicable in nine (27%) items/subitems. Phase III: Pretesting with 28 patients and 14 HCPs found that the UROM was acceptable to both respondent groups. An unanticipated secondary finding of the study was that the combined use of plain language and medical terminology during questionnaire development may be a useful, novel technique for evaluating item interpretation and thereby identifying items with inadequate content validity.
UROMs are a novel approach to outcome assessment that are acceptable to both patients and HCPs. Combining plain language and medical terminology during item development is a recommended technique to improve accuracy of item interpretation and content validity during questionnaire design. More work is needed to further validate this novel approach and explore the application of UROMs to other settings.
描述“通用报告者”结局指标(UROM)的新概念及开发方法;这是一种单一问卷,当需要患者和/或医疗保健专业人员(HCP)就同一主题发表意见时由他们填写。
一项混合方法研究,分为三个阶段——第一阶段:从现有临床工具、患者问卷以及对多方利益相关者的深入访谈中确定相关内容领域;第二阶段:采用一种新颖的方法开发条目,该方法将通俗易懂的语言与医学术语相结合;第三阶段:通过认知访谈对多方利益相关者进行预测试。
在英国两家医院信托机构和一所大学进行的一项关于手术伤口评估的案例研究。
近期接受普通腹部手术的患者以及参与术后伤口护理工作的医疗保健专业人员。
第一阶段:在该案例研究示例中,从两份临床工具、两份患者问卷以及19次多方利益相关者访谈(9名患者、10名HCP)中确定了19个相关内容领域。第二阶段:将各领域转化为条目和子条目(若相关,子条目为收集更多信息的次要组成部分)。预测试后的版本有16个条目,其中5个包含进一步的子条目。通俗易懂的语言与医学术语相结合适用于9个(27%)条目/子条目。第三阶段:对28名患者和14名HCP进行预测试发现,UROM为两组受访者所接受。该研究一个意外的次要发现是,在问卷开发过程中结合使用通俗易懂的语言和医学术语可能是一种有用的新颖技术,可用于评估条目解释,从而识别内容效度不足的条目。
UROM是一种患者和HCP都能接受的新颖结局评估方法。在条目开发过程中结合使用通俗易懂的语言和医学术语是一种推荐技术,可提高问卷设计过程中条目解释的准确性和内容效度。需要开展更多工作以进一步验证这种新颖方法,并探索UROM在其他场景中的应用。