评估荷兰全国基于结果的医疗保健计划中 157 项患者报告结果指标 (PROM) 的可理解性:需要更加关注 PROMs 的可理解性。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Attie Tuinenburg, Domino Determann, Elise H Quik, Esmee M van der Willik, Geeske Hofstra, Joannes M Hallegraeff, Ingrid Vriend, Lisanne Warmerdam, Hester E van Bommel, Gudule Boland, Martijn A H Oude Voshaar
{"title":"评估荷兰全国基于结果的医疗保健计划中 157 项患者报告结果指标 (PROM) 的可理解性:需要更加关注 PROMs 的可理解性。","authors":"Attie Tuinenburg, Domino Determann, Elise H Quik, Esmee M van der Willik, Geeske Hofstra, Joannes M Hallegraeff, Ingrid Vriend, Lisanne Warmerdam, Hester E van Bommel, Gudule Boland, Martijn A H Oude Voshaar","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00710-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are increasingly prevalent in healthcare and used for shared decision-making and healthcare quality evaluation. However, the extent to which patients with varying health literacy levels can complete PROMs is often overlooked. This may lead to biased aggregated data and patients being excluded from studies or other PROM collection initiatives. This cross-sectional study evaluates the comprehensibility of 157 well-known and widely used PROM scales using a comprehensibility checklist.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pairs of two independent raters scored 157 PROM scales designed for adults included in the 35 sets of outcome information developed as part of the Dutch Outcome-Based Healthcare Program. The PROM scales were scored on the eight comprehensibility domains of the Pharos Checklist for Questionnaires in Healthcare (PCQH). Interrater agreement of domain ratings was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients or Cohen's kappa. Subsequently, final ratings were established through discussion and used to evaluate the domain-specific comprehensibility rating for each PROM scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comprehensibility of a large number of PROM scales (n = 157), which cover a wide range of diseases and conditions across Dutch medical specialist care, was assessed. While most PROM scales were written at an accessible language level, with minimal use of medical terms, instruction clarity, number of questions, and response options emerged as significant issues, affecting a substantial proportion of PROM scales. Interrater agreement was high for most domains of the PCQH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the need for greater attention to the comprehensibility of PROMs to ensure their accessibility to all patients, including those with low health literacy. The PCQH can be a valuable tool in PROM development in addition to qualitative methods and in selection processes enabling comparison of comprehensibility between PROMs. However, the PCQH needs further development and validation for these purposes. Enhancing the comprehensibility of PROMs is essential for their effective incorporation in healthcare evaluation and decision-making processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Comprehensibility of 157 Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in the Nationwide Dutch Outcome-Based Healthcare Program: More Attention for Comprehensibility of PROMs is Needed.\",\"authors\":\"Attie Tuinenburg, Domino Determann, Elise H Quik, Esmee M van der Willik, Geeske Hofstra, Joannes M Hallegraeff, Ingrid Vriend, Lisanne Warmerdam, Hester E van Bommel, Gudule Boland, Martijn A H Oude Voshaar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-024-00710-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are increasingly prevalent in healthcare and used for shared decision-making and healthcare quality evaluation. However, the extent to which patients with varying health literacy levels can complete PROMs is often overlooked. This may lead to biased aggregated data and patients being excluded from studies or other PROM collection initiatives. This cross-sectional study evaluates the comprehensibility of 157 well-known and widely used PROM scales using a comprehensibility checklist.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pairs of two independent raters scored 157 PROM scales designed for adults included in the 35 sets of outcome information developed as part of the Dutch Outcome-Based Healthcare Program. The PROM scales were scored on the eight comprehensibility domains of the Pharos Checklist for Questionnaires in Healthcare (PCQH). Interrater agreement of domain ratings was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients or Cohen's kappa. Subsequently, final ratings were established through discussion and used to evaluate the domain-specific comprehensibility rating for each PROM scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comprehensibility of a large number of PROM scales (n = 157), which cover a wide range of diseases and conditions across Dutch medical specialist care, was assessed. While most PROM scales were written at an accessible language level, with minimal use of medical terms, instruction clarity, number of questions, and response options emerged as significant issues, affecting a substantial proportion of PROM scales. Interrater agreement was high for most domains of the PCQH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the need for greater attention to the comprehensibility of PROMs to ensure their accessibility to all patients, including those with low health literacy. The PCQH can be a valuable tool in PROM development in addition to qualitative methods and in selection processes enabling comparison of comprehensibility between PROMs. However, the PCQH needs further development and validation for these purposes. Enhancing the comprehensibility of PROMs is essential for their effective incorporation in healthcare evaluation and decision-making processes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00710-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00710-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)在医疗保健领域越来越普遍,并被用于共同决策和医疗质量评估。然而,不同健康素养水平的患者能够完成 PROMs 的程度往往被忽视。这可能会导致汇总数据有偏差,患者被排除在研究或其他 PROM 收集计划之外。这项横断面研究使用可理解性核对表评估了 157 个著名且广泛使用的 PROM 量表的可理解性:方法:由两对独立的评分者对 157 份专为成人设计的 PROM 量表进行评分,这些量表包含在作为荷兰基于结果的医疗保健计划的一部分而开发的 35 套结果信息中。这些 PROM 量表根据 Pharos 医疗保健问卷核对表 (PCQH) 的八个可理解性域进行评分。采用类内相关系数(Intraclass Correlation Coefficients)或科恩卡帕(Cohen's kappa)评估各领域评分的相互一致性。随后,通过讨论确定最终评分,并用于评估每个 PROM 量表的特定领域可理解性:结果:对大量 PROM 量表(n = 157)的可理解性进行了评估,这些量表涵盖了荷兰医疗专科护理中的多种疾病和病症。虽然大多数 PROM 量表的语言水平易于理解,且尽量少用医学术语,但说明清晰度、问题数量和回答选项成为重要问题,影响了很大一部分 PROM 量表。在 PCQH 的大多数领域中,相互间的一致性都很高:本研究强调了需要更加关注 PROM 的可理解性,以确保所有患者,包括健康知识水平较低的患者,都能使用 PROM。除定性方法外,PCQH 在 PROM 的开发和选择过程中也是一个很有价值的工具,可以对不同 PROM 的可理解性进行比较。不过,PCQH 还需要进一步开发和验证。提高 PROM 的可理解性对于将其有效纳入医疗评估和决策过程至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluating Comprehensibility of 157 Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in the Nationwide Dutch Outcome-Based Healthcare Program: More Attention for Comprehensibility of PROMs is Needed.

Evaluating Comprehensibility of 157 Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in the Nationwide Dutch Outcome-Based Healthcare Program: More Attention for Comprehensibility of PROMs is Needed.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are increasingly prevalent in healthcare and used for shared decision-making and healthcare quality evaluation. However, the extent to which patients with varying health literacy levels can complete PROMs is often overlooked. This may lead to biased aggregated data and patients being excluded from studies or other PROM collection initiatives. This cross-sectional study evaluates the comprehensibility of 157 well-known and widely used PROM scales using a comprehensibility checklist.

Methods: Pairs of two independent raters scored 157 PROM scales designed for adults included in the 35 sets of outcome information developed as part of the Dutch Outcome-Based Healthcare Program. The PROM scales were scored on the eight comprehensibility domains of the Pharos Checklist for Questionnaires in Healthcare (PCQH). Interrater agreement of domain ratings was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients or Cohen's kappa. Subsequently, final ratings were established through discussion and used to evaluate the domain-specific comprehensibility rating for each PROM scale.

Results: Comprehensibility of a large number of PROM scales (n = 157), which cover a wide range of diseases and conditions across Dutch medical specialist care, was assessed. While most PROM scales were written at an accessible language level, with minimal use of medical terms, instruction clarity, number of questions, and response options emerged as significant issues, affecting a substantial proportion of PROM scales. Interrater agreement was high for most domains of the PCQH.

Conclusion: This study highlights the need for greater attention to the comprehensibility of PROMs to ensure their accessibility to all patients, including those with low health literacy. The PCQH can be a valuable tool in PROM development in addition to qualitative methods and in selection processes enabling comparison of comprehensibility between PROMs. However, the PCQH needs further development and validation for these purposes. Enhancing the comprehensibility of PROMs is essential for their effective incorporation in healthcare evaluation and decision-making processes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信