Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1013–1020 | Cite as

Choice of recall period for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: criteria for consideration

  • Josephine M. NorquistEmail author
  • Cynthia Girman
  • Sheri Fehnel
  • Carla DeMuro-Mercon
  • Nancy Santanello
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Understand the choice of recall period for PRO measures based on intended use, characteristics of the disease, treatment, and attributes of studies.

Methods

Current practice and considerations were reviewed within several disease areas (overactive bladder, menopausal hot flashes, niacin-induced flushing, osteoarthritis pain, irritable bowel symptoms, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and alopecia).

Results

Rationales were identified for using different recall periods, including event-driven (immediate), daily, up to weekly, and longer than weekly. This work demonstrates that (1) recall depends on what the PRO measure captures, its intended use, and attributes of the disease and study; (2) within the same disease area, recall can vary depending on the concept or phenomenon of interest; (3) recall must consider patient burden and their ability to easily and accurately recall the information requested; and (4) recall must be consistent with the duration of the trial and the scheduled clinic visits.

Conclusions

Shorter recall periods may underestimate symptom burden when symptoms have diurnal or day-to-day fluctuation and may place undue burden on patients. On the other hand, recall intervals that are too long may either over- or underestimate the health state. Therefore, appropriate criteria should be considered given attributes of the disease when selecting an adequate recall period.

Keywords

Patient-reported outcomes Recall period Measurement 

References

  1. 1.
    Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development of support labeling claims. Federal Register. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Stull, D. E., Leidy, N. K., Parasuraman, B., & Chassany, O. (2009). Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: Challenges and potential solutions. CMRO, 24(4), 929–942.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barry, M. J., Fowler, F. J., Oleary, M. P., Bruskewitz, R. C., Holtgrewe, H. L., Mebust, W. K., et al. (1992). The American-Urological-Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Urology, 148(5), 1549–1557.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mularski, R. A., Rosenfeld, K., Coons, S. J., Dueck, A., Cella, D., Feuer, D., et al. (2007). Measuring outcomes in randomized prospective trials in palliative care. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Volume, 34(1), S7–S19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C., & Snyder, C. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: A review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 57, 278–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Cancer Institute. (2008). The nation’s investment in cancer research: A plan and budget proposal for fiscal year 2008. NIH Publication No. 06–6090. Available at: http://plan.cancer.gov. Accessed 22 Aug 2008.
  7. 7.
    Brown, J. S., McNaughton, K. S., Wyman, J. F., Burgio, K. L., Harkaway, R., Bergner, D., et al. (2003). Measurement characteristics of a voiding diary for use by men and women with overactive bladder. Urology, 61(4), 802–809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams, R. E., Kalilani, L., DiBenedetti, D. B., Zhou, X., Granger, A. L., Fehnel, S. E., et al. (2008). Frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms among peri- and postmenopausal women in the United States. Climacteric, 11(1), 32–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carpenter, J. S., & Monahan, P. O. (2004). Accuracy of subjective hot flush reports compared with continuous sternal skin conductance monitoring. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 104(6), 1322–1326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coronary Drug Project Group. (1975). Clofibrate and niacin in coronary heart disease. Jama, 231(4), 360–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Juniper, E. F., Svensson, K., Mörk, A. C., & Ståhl, E. (2004). Measuring health-related quality of life in adults during an acute asthma exacerbation. Chest, 125(1), 93–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Furlong, W. B., Feeny, D., & Yandow, S. (2005). Patient-focused measures of functional health status and health-related quality of life in pediatric orthopedics: A case study in measurement selection. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, (3), 1477–7525.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bellamy, N., Buchanan, W. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Campbell, J., & Stitt, L. W. (1988). Validation-study of WOMAC: A health-status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug-therapy in patients with osteo-arthritis of the hip or knee. Journal of Rheumatology, 15(12), 1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Camilleri, M., Chey, W. Y., Mayer, E. A., Northcutt, A. R., Heath, A., Dukes, G. E., et al. (2001). A randomized controlled clinical trial of the serotonin type 3 receptor antagonist alosetron in women with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Archives of Internal Medicine, 161(14), 1733–1740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leventer, S., Raudibaugh, K., Frissora, C., Mangel, A., Galbraith, K. B., Kucharik, R., et al. (2005). The safety and efficacy of dextofisopam in patients with diarrhea-predominant or alternating irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology, 128(4), A94.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nyhlin, H., Bang, C., Elsborg, L., Silvennoinen, J., Holme, I., Ruegg, P., et al. (2004). A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of tegaserod in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 39(2), 119–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miner, P., Stanton, D. B., Carter, F., Caras, S., Krause, G., & Steinborn, C. (2004). Cilansetron in irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea predominance (IBS-D): Efficacy and safety in a 3 months US study. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 99(10), S277.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fehnel, S., Johnston, J., Kurtz, C., & Mangel, A. (2006). Assessing global change and symptom severity in subjects with IBS: Qualitative item testing. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 101, S483.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Irvine, E. J., Whitehead, W. E., Chey, W. D., Matsueda, K., Shaw, M., Talley, N. J., et al. (2006). Design of treatment trials for functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterology, 130(5), 1538–1551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lubeck, D. P., Prebil, L. A., Peeples, P., & Brown, J. S. (1999). A health related quality of life measure for use in patients with urge urinary incontinence: A validation study. Quality of Life Research, 8(4), 337–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reese, P. R., Pleil, A. M., Okano, G. J., & Kelleher, C. J. (2003). Multinational study of reliability and validity of the King’s Health Questionnaire in patients with overactive bladder. Quality of Life Research, 12(4), 427–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feinstein, R. P. (2007). Androgenetic Alopecia. EMedicine (from WebMD).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olsen, E. A. (2001). Female pattern hair loss: Clinical features and potential hormonal factors. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 45(3), S69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lucky, A. W., Piacquadio, D. J., Ditre, C. M., Dunlap, F., Kantor, I., Pandya, A. G., et al. (2004). A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 5 and 2% topical minoxidil solutions in the treatment of female pattern hair loss. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 50(4), 541–553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Revicki, D. A., Camilleri, M., Kuo, B., Norton, J. N., Murray, L., Palsgrove, A., & Parkman, H. P. (2009). Development and content validity of a gastroparesis cardinal symptom index daily diary. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 30(6), 670–680.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Revicki, D. A., Margolis, M. K., Bush, E. N., DeRogatis, L. R., & Hanes, V. (2011). Content validity of the female sexual function index (FSFI) in pre- and postmenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Journal of Sexual Medicine (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josephine M. Norquist
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cynthia Girman
    • 1
  • Sheri Fehnel
    • 2
  • Carla DeMuro-Mercon
    • 2
  • Nancy Santanello
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EpidemiologyMerck Research LaboratoriesNorth WalesUSA
  2. 2.RTI Health Solutions, RTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations