Department of Haematology, Quality of Life Research Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Section of Haematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark.
Qual Life Res. 2024 Sep;33(9):2387-2400. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03707-y. Epub 2024 Jun 16.
Non-response (NR) to patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires may cause bias if not handled appropriately. Collecting reasons for NR is recommended, but how reasons for NR are related to missing data mechanisms remains unexplored. We aimed to explore this relationship for intermittent NRs.
Patients with multiple myeloma completed validated PRO questionnaires at enrolment and 12 follow-up time-points. NR was defined as non-completion of a follow-up assessment within seven days, which triggered contact with the patient, recording the reason for missingness and an invitation to complete the questionnaire (denoted "salvage response"). Mean differences between salvage and previous on-time scores were estimated for groups defined by reasons for NR using linear regression with clustered standard errors. Statistically significant mean differences larger than minimal important difference thresholds were interpreted as "missing not at random" (MNAR) mechanism (i.e. assumed to be related to declining health), and the remainder interpreted as aligned with "missing completely at random" (MCAR) mechanism (i.e. assumed unrelated to changes in health).
Most (7228/7534 (96%)) follow-up questionnaires were completed; 11% (802/7534) were salvage responses. Mean salvage scores were compared to previous on-time scores by reason: those due to hospital admission, mental or physical reasons were worse in 10/22 PRO domains; those due to technical difficulties/procedural errors were no different in 21/22 PRO domains; and those due to overlooked/forgotten or other/unspecified reasons were no different in any domains.
Intermittent NRs due to hospital admission, mental or physical reasons were aligned with MNAR mechanism for nearly half of PRO domains, while intermittent NRs due to technical difficulties/procedural errors or other/unspecified reasons generally were aligned with MCAR mechanism.
如果不能妥善处理,患者报告结局(PRO)问卷的无应答(NR)可能会导致偏倚。建议收集 NR 的原因,但 NR 的原因与缺失数据机制的关系仍未得到探索。我们旨在探索间歇性 NR 的这种关系。
多发性骨髓瘤患者在入组时和 12 个随访时间点完成了经过验证的 PRO 问卷。NR 定义为在七天内未完成随访评估,这会触发与患者联系,记录缺失原因,并邀请他们完成问卷(表示为“抢救应答”)。使用具有聚类标准误差的线性回归,根据 NR 的原因,对不同组的抢救和以前按时评分之间的平均差异进行估计。如果统计上显著的平均差异大于最小重要差异阈值,则被解释为“非随机缺失”(MNAR)机制(即假设与健康状况下降有关),其余被解释为与“完全随机缺失”(MCAR)机制一致(即假设与健康变化无关)。
大多数(7534/7534(96%))随访问卷完成;11%(802/7534)为抢救应答。根据原因将平均抢救评分与以前的按时评分进行比较:因住院、精神或身体原因导致的评分在 22 个 PRO 领域中的 10 个领域较差;因技术困难/程序错误导致的评分在 22 个 PRO 领域中的 21 个领域无差异;因忽略/忘记或其他/未指定原因导致的评分在任何领域均无差异。
因住院、精神或身体原因导致的间歇性 NR 在近一半的 PRO 领域中与 MNAR 机制一致,而因技术困难/程序错误或其他/未指定原因导致的间歇性 NR 通常与 MCAR 机制一致。