Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 21;9(11):e032859. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032859.
This study aimed to quantify recall bias in the measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), that is, the extent to which recollection is impaired and leads to distorted judgements.
Prospective observational study.
One hundred patients with two paradigmatic chronic diseases (50 with multiple sclerosis and 50 with psoriasis) were recruited at two outpatient clinics.
Patients completed the online version of the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) repeatedly for 28 consecutive days: (1) daily, considering the past 24 hours; (2) weekly, considering the past 7 days; and (3) on the last day of data collection, considering the past 4 weeks. SF-12 scores for all three measurement approaches were subsequently converted into preference-based utility indices (Short-Form Six-Dimension). Agreement of the three indices was analysed on group and individual patient levels.
The mean age of participants was 40.3 years (±12.0), and 63% were female. The utility index based on daily recall (0.74±0.13) was more positive than indices based on a weekly (0.70±0.13, p<0.001) or a monthly (0.70±0.14, p<0.001) recall. While agreement of measurement approaches was high on group level (intraclass correlation coefficient>0.85), it was lower for the subgroup of patients experiencing high variability of HRQoL over time. Bland-Altman plots revealed considerable differences on individual patient level.
On the group level, retrospective overestimation and underestimation of HRQoL almost cancelled out one another and recall bias was relatively small. Therefore, a 4-week recall period could be appropriate when group-level data are used for research or economic evaluations. In contrast, recall bias can be considerable on the individual patient level and may thus impact decision-making in clinical practice.
VfD_RECALL_16_003837.
本研究旨在量化健康相关生活质量（HRQoL）测量中的回忆偏倚，即回忆受损的程度以及导致判断失真的程度。
前瞻性观察研究。
在两个门诊诊所招募了 100 名患有两种典型慢性疾病（50 名多发性硬化症患者和 50 名银屑病患者）的患者。
患者在 28 天内重复完成了 12 项简明健康调查（SF-12）的在线版本，共计 3 次：（1）每日，考虑过去 24 小时；（2）每周，考虑过去 7 天；（3）在数据收集的最后一天，考虑过去 4 周。所有三种测量方法的 SF-12 评分随后均转换为基于偏好的效用指数（简短六维度）。在组和个体患者水平上分析了三种指数的一致性。
参与者的平均年龄为 40.3 岁（±12.0），63%为女性。基于每日回忆的效用指数（0.74±0.13）比基于每周（0.70±0.13，p<0.001）或每月（0.70±0.14，p<0.001）回忆的效用指数更积极。虽然测量方法在组水平上具有较高的一致性（组内相关系数>0.85），但在 HRQoL 随时间变化具有较高变异性的患者亚组中则较低。Bland-Altman 图显示在个体患者水平上存在较大差异。
在组水平上，HRQoL 的回顾性高估和低估几乎相互抵消，回忆偏倚相对较小。因此，当使用组级数据进行研究或经济评估时，4 周的回忆期可能是合适的。相比之下，回忆偏倚在个体患者水平上可能相当大，因此可能会影响临床实践中的决策。
VfD_RECALL_16_003837。
