Professors Michael Brundage and David Cella discuss patient-reported outcome measures and prioritization measures. Topics include validity, reliability, scoring interpretability, creating tailored measures in clinical trials, developing questions for item banks, challenges in measurement across diverse populations, and strategies to ensure clarity and validity in healthcare measurements.
Content validation is crucial for patient-reported outcome measures to capture accurate data across different cultures and regions.
Developing new measures should consider granularity, global vs. specific items, reliability, and validity.
Utilizing both global and specific questions in clinical trials is beneficial for primary and secondary outcome assessments.
Deep dives
Considering Various Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Item Banks
When measuring specific concepts in a particular context and with a specific population, there are various patient-reported outcome measures, item banks, and item libraries available. The key is to ensure that these measures are content-validated to accurately capture the intended data in a current context across different cultures and regions where trials are conducted.
Balancing Between Developing New Measures and Utilizing Existing Tools
While leveraging existing tools saves time and resources, there is a growing need for developing new measures if the data suggests an improvement in measurement accuracy. When crafting new measures, it is essential to consider their granularity, whether they should be global, general, or single items, all while maintaining reliability and validity in measurement.
Role of Global versus Specific Questions in Clinical Trials
In clinical trials, utilizing both global and specific questions is beneficial, with global questions often serving as anchors for more detailed queries. Specific questions closer to the intervention tend to show more responsiveness in primary outcomes, while global questions can serve as secondary assessments. The reliability and validity of these measurements are crucial for trial success.
Challenges and Considerations in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement
Measuring patient-reported outcomes can present challenges, such as issues with cognitive abilities affecting data accuracy and potential proxy responses. Ensuring relevance, reducing redundancy, and maintaining patient-centeredness are vital aspects to consider in developing and implementing measurement tools. Addressing cultural nuances, literacy levels, and patient understanding through cognitive debriefing enhances the quality of data collected.
Towards Optimal COA Endpoints in Clinical Trials
Defining optimal clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoints involves careful consideration of patient-reported outcome measures, item banks, and granular versus global questions. By balancing the specificity of questions with broader assessment tools, researchers strive to capture meaningful data while maintaining measurement accuracy. The continuous advancement in COA development aims to address challenges in diverse patient populations and ensure robust data collection in clinical settings.
Patient-reported outcome measures – are there too many or too few?
Professors Michael Brundage and David Cella debate this question and deep-dive into a few patient prioritization measures on this week's all-new episode, including the criteria for validity, reliability, and scoring interpretability.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
