Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice
- 1.8k Downloads
The umbrella term Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) has been successfully proposed for instruments measuring perceived health outcomes, but its relationship to current conceptual models remains to be established. Our aim was to develop a classification system for PRO measures based on a valid conceptual model.
We reviewed models and classification schemes of health outcomes and integrated them in a common conceptual framework, based on the models by Wilson and Cleary and the International Classification of Functioning (ICF). We developed a cross-classification system based on the minimum common set of consistent concepts identified in previous classifications, and specified categories based on the WHO International Classifications (ICD-10, and ICF). We exemplified the use of the classification system with selected PRO instruments.
We identified three guiding concepts: (1) construct (the measurement object); (2) population (based on age, gender, condition, and culture); and (3) measurement model (dimensionality, metric, and adaptability). The application of the system to selected PRO measures demonstrated the feasibility of its use, and showed that most of them actually assess more than one construct.
This classification system of PRO measures, based on a valid integrated conceptual model, should allow the classification of most currently used instruments and may facilitate a more adequate selection and application of these instruments.
KeywordsClassification Construct Measurement Patient reported outcomes Quality of life
The authors would like to thank Dr Montse Ferrer, MD PhD MPH (Health Services Research Unit, IMIM-Hospital del Mar, Spain) and Dr Martin Roland, DM (Director of the National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, Manchester University, UK) for their thoughtful comments on a previous draft of the manuscript. We would also wish to acknowledge the contribution of two anonymous reviewers to the completeness and clarity we may have achieved in this article.
- 1.Patrick, D. L., & Erickson, P. (1993). Health status and health policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 5.Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., et al. & PRO Harmonization Group. (2003). Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: An ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health, 6(5), 522–531. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65309.x.Google Scholar
- 7.FDA. (2006). Draft guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medicinal product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 71, 5862–5863.Google Scholar
- 8.Levine, D. M., Morlock, L. L., Mushlin, A. I., Shapiro, S., & Malitz, F. E. (1976). The role of new health practitioners in a prepaid group practice: Provider differences in process and outcomes of medical care. Medical Care, 14(4), 326–347. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197604000-00004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1996). Measuring health. A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 18.Patrick, D. L., & Chiang, Y. P. (2002). Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations. Medical Care, 38(9, Suppl II), II-14–II-25.Google Scholar
- 19.Bowling, A. (1997). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- 20.The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). (2007). Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5, Suppl 1), S3–S11.Google Scholar
- 25. Patrick DL, Chiang YP. Measurement of Health Outcomes in Treatment Effectiveness Evaluations. Medical Care 2002:38 (9, Suppl. II):II14–II25Google Scholar
- 26.Cross-classification.WordNet. Princeton University. (2006). Available at http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cross-classification. Accessed 07 May 2008.
- 28.Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 32.Orfila, F., Ferrer, M., Lamarca, R., Tebe, C., Domingo-Salvany, A., & Alonso, J. (2006). Gender differences in health-related quality of life among the elderly: The role of objective functional capacity and chronic conditions. Social Science & Medicine, 63(9), 2367–2380. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.06.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Üstün, T. B., Chatterji, S., Bickenbach, J., Kostanjsek, N., & Schneider, M. (2003). The international classification of functioning, disability and health: A new tool for understanding disability and health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(11–12), 565–571. doi: 10.1080/0963828031000137063.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Geyh, S., Cieza, A., Kollerits, B., Grimby, G., & Stucki, G. (2007). Content comparison of health-related quality of life measures used in stroke based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 833–851. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9174-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Oxford English Dictionary. (2008). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available online at http://www.oed.com/. Accessed 7 May 2008.
- 45.International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. 10th Revision Version for 2006. Accesible at http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/. Accessed 15 May 2008.
- 46.International Classification of Functioning.Disability and Health. Accesible at http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/site/onlinebrowser/icf.cfm. Accessed 15 May 2008.
- 47.Streiner, D., & Normand, C. (1995). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 48.Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- 50.Ribera, A., Permanyer-Miralda, G., Alonso, J., Cascant, P., Soriano, N., & Brotons, C. (2006). Is psychometric scoring of the McNew quality of life after myocardial infarction questionnaire superior to the clinimetric scoring? A comparison of the two approaches. Quality of Life Research, 15(3), 357–365. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-2291-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Kaplan, R. M. (1998). Profile versus utility based measures of outcome for clinical trials. In M. J. Staquet, R. D. Hays & P. M. Fayers (Eds.), Quality of life assessment in clinical trials. Methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 56.Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Ware, J. E., Jr., Sullivan, E., & Straus, W. L. (2006). An evaluation of a patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing osteoarthritis impact. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(7), 715–723. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.Jette, A.M., & Badley, E. (2000). Conceptual issues in the measurement of work disability. In: N. Mathiowetz & G. S. Wunderlich (Eds), Survey measurement of work disability: Summary of a workshop (pp. 4–27). Washington DC: National Academy Press. Available online at http://books.nap.edu/html/work_disability/ch2.html. Accessed 19 July 2008.
- 58.Valderas, J. M., Ferrer, M., Mendívil, J., Garin, O., Rajmil, L., Herdman, M., et al. (2008). The scientific committee on “patient-reported outcomes” of the IRYSS network. Development of EMPRO: A tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 11(4), 700–708. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00309.x.Google Scholar
- 59.Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2008). The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 17(2), 179–193. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar