Understanding the relationship between patient-reported outcome measures, clinician-rated assessments, and performance-based measures (cognitive tests and device-based estimates) of symptoms and functioning in people with Huntington's disease.

IF 3.1 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Noelle E Carlozzi, Jonathan P Troost, Wendy L Lombard, Jennifer A Miner, Praveen Dayalu
{"title":"Understanding the relationship between patient-reported outcome measures, clinician-rated assessments, and performance-based measures (cognitive tests and device-based estimates) of symptoms and functioning in people with Huntington's disease.","authors":"Noelle E Carlozzi, Jonathan P Troost, Wendy L Lombard, Jennifer A Miner, Praveen Dayalu","doi":"10.1177/18796397251366313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundGiven the progressive cognitive decline in Huntington's disease (HD), most research in this population relies solely on objective assessments of symptoms and function, rather than on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures.ObjectiveThe purpose of this paper is to understand how PRO measures relate to clinician-rated assessments and performance-based measures (cognitive tests and device-based estimates) of symptoms and functioning in people with HD.MethodsWe enrolled N = 52 participants with HD in this study. Participants completed several self-reported PROs as well as clinician-administered assessments and performance-based measures (cognitive tests and device-based estimates) of related concepts. Pearson correlations and linear regression models were used to examine the concordance among PROs, clinician-rated assessments, and performance-based measures.ResultsThere were strong relationships among PROs that assessed related concepts. There were also strong relationships between PROs and associated clinician-rated assessments of physical functioning (chorea, sleep/fatigue) and mental health, and slightly less robust relationships between the PROs and associated clinician-rated assessments for speech/swallowing and cognition. Relationships between PROs and associated performance-based measures were moderate for chorea/motor functioning, but negligible for sleep/fatigue and cognition.ConclusionsFindings from this study support the construct validity of PROs that assess motor functioning and mental health among individuals with HD and indicate that PROs and clinician-rated assessments of these constructs (i.e., motor functioning and mental health) provide complementary information. On the other hand, the negligible relationships between PROs and associated performance-based cognitive tests and between PROs and associated wearable device-based estimates of sleep and physical activity indicate that reliance solely on HD patients' self-report for these concepts might be misleading.</p>","PeriodicalId":16042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Huntington's disease","volume":" ","pages":"18796397251366313"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Huntington's disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18796397251366313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundGiven the progressive cognitive decline in Huntington's disease (HD), most research in this population relies solely on objective assessments of symptoms and function, rather than on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures.ObjectiveThe purpose of this paper is to understand how PRO measures relate to clinician-rated assessments and performance-based measures (cognitive tests and device-based estimates) of symptoms and functioning in people with HD.MethodsWe enrolled N = 52 participants with HD in this study. Participants completed several self-reported PROs as well as clinician-administered assessments and performance-based measures (cognitive tests and device-based estimates) of related concepts. Pearson correlations and linear regression models were used to examine the concordance among PROs, clinician-rated assessments, and performance-based measures.ResultsThere were strong relationships among PROs that assessed related concepts. There were also strong relationships between PROs and associated clinician-rated assessments of physical functioning (chorea, sleep/fatigue) and mental health, and slightly less robust relationships between the PROs and associated clinician-rated assessments for speech/swallowing and cognition. Relationships between PROs and associated performance-based measures were moderate for chorea/motor functioning, but negligible for sleep/fatigue and cognition.ConclusionsFindings from this study support the construct validity of PROs that assess motor functioning and mental health among individuals with HD and indicate that PROs and clinician-rated assessments of these constructs (i.e., motor functioning and mental health) provide complementary information. On the other hand, the negligible relationships between PROs and associated performance-based cognitive tests and between PROs and associated wearable device-based estimates of sleep and physical activity indicate that reliance solely on HD patients' self-report for these concepts might be misleading.

了解亨廷顿舞蹈病患者的症状和功能的患者报告的结果测量、临床评定评估和基于表现的测量(认知测试和基于设备的估计)之间的关系。
背景:考虑到亨廷顿舞蹈病(HD)的认知能力进行性下降,大多数针对该人群的研究仅依赖于对症状和功能的客观评估,而不是患者报告的结果(PRO)测量。目的:本论文的目的是了解PRO测量与临床评定的HD患者症状和功能的评估和基于性能的测量(认知测试和基于设备的估计)之间的关系。方法纳入52例HD患者。参与者完成了几项自我报告的评价,以及临床医生管理的评估和基于表现的相关概念测量(认知测试和基于设备的估计)。使用Pearson相关性和线性回归模型来检验PROs、临床评分评估和基于绩效的测量之间的一致性。结果评价相关概念的专业人员之间存在较强的相关性。赞成度与临床医生评定的身体功能(舞蹈病、睡眠/疲劳)和心理健康评估之间也有很强的关系,赞成度与临床医生评定的语言/吞咽和认知评估之间的关系稍弱。在舞蹈病/运动功能方面,PROs与相关的基于表现的测量之间的关系是中等的,但在睡眠/疲劳和认知方面可以忽略不计。结论本研究的结果支持了评估HD患者运动功能和心理健康的pro结构效度,并表明pro和这些结构(即运动功能和心理健康)的临床评估提供了互补的信息。另一方面,pro与相关的基于表现的认知测试之间的关系以及pro与相关的基于可穿戴设备的睡眠和身体活动估计之间的关系可以忽略,这表明仅仅依赖HD患者的自我报告可能会误导这些概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.70%
发文量
60
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信