Ambulatory and diary methods can facilitate the measurement of patient-reported outcomes
Ambulatory and diary methods of self-reported symptoms and well-being have received increasing interest in recent years. These methods are a valuable addition to traditional strategies for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in that they capture patients’ recent symptom experiences repeatedly in their natural environments. In this article, we review ways that incorporating diary methods into PRO measurement can facilitate research on quality of life.
Several diary methods are currently available, and they include “real-time” (Ecological Momentary Assessment) and “near-real-time” (end-of-day assessments, Day Reconstruction Method) formats. We identify the key benefits of these methods for PRO research.
(1) In validity testing, diary assessments can serve as a standard for evaluating the ecological validity and for identifying recall biases of PRO instruments with longer-term recall formats. (2) In research and clinical settings, diaries have the ability to closely capture variations and dynamic changes in quality of life that are difficult or not possible to obtain from traditional PRO assessments. (3) In test construction, repeated diary assessments can expand understanding of the measurement characteristics (e.g., reliability, dimensionality) of PROs in that parameters for differences between people can be compared with those for variation within people.
Diary assessment strategies can enrich the repertoire of PRO assessment tools and enhance the measurement of patients’ quality of life.
KeywordsPatient-reported outcomes Ambulatory measurement Diaries Ecological Momentary Assessment Day Reconstruction Method Recall
- 1.Stone, A. A., & Shiffman, S. (1994). Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 199–202.Google Scholar
- 9.Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S., Atienza, A., & Nebling, L. (Eds.). (2007). The science of real-time data capture: Self-reports in health research. New Yrok: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 24.Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18, 873–880.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Schwarz, N. (2007). Retrospective and concurrent self-reports: The rationale for real-time data capture. In A. A. Stone, S. S. Shiffman, A. Atienza, & L. Nebeling (Eds.), The science of real-time data capture: Self-reports in health research (pp. 11–26). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 27.Ware, J. E. (1993). SF-36 health survey: Manual & interpretive guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
- 28.Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 1179–1194.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. http://www.fda.gov. Accessed March 22, 2010.
- 34.Bussmann, J. B., & Ebner-Priemer, U. W. (2012). Ambulatory assessment of movement behavior. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 235–250). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 38.Junghaenel, D. U., Schneider, S., Stone, A. A., Christodoulou, C., & Broderick, J. E. (2014). Ecological validity and clinical utility of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) instruments for detecting premenstrual symptoms of depression, anger, and fatigue. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 76, 300–306.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Broderick, J. E., Schneider, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A. (2013). Validity and reliability of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care & Research, 65, 1625–1633.Google Scholar
- 43.Dolan, P., & Kudrna, L. (2015). More years, less yawns: Fresh evidence on tiredness by age and other factors. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70, 576–580.Google Scholar
- 70.Jim, H. S., Small, B., Faul, L. A., Franzen, J., Apte, S., & Jacobsen, P. B. (2011). Fatigue, depression, sleep, and activity during chemotherapy: Daily and intraday variation and relationships among symptom changes. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42, 321–333.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 71.Junghaenel, D. U., Cohen, J., Schneider, S., Neerukonda, A. R., & Broderick, J. E. (2015). Identification of distinct fatigue trajectories in patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. Supportive Care in Cancer. doi:10.1007/s00520-015-2616-x.
- 75.Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N. (2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: Can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 917–929.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 76.Schneider, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Keefe, F. J., Schwartz, J. E., Stone, A. A., & Broderick, J. E. (2012). Individual differences in the day-to-day variability of pain, fatigue, and well-being in patients with rheumatic disease: Associations with psychological variables. Pain, 153, 813–822.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 90.Fayers, P., & Machin, D. (2013). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Wichester, West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 92.Molenaar, P. C. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2, 201–218.Google Scholar
- 93.Velicer, W. F., Babbin, S. F., & Palumbo, R. (2014). Idiographic applications: Issues of ergodicity and generalizability. In P. C. M. Molenaar, R. M. Lerner, & K. M. Newell (Eds.), Handbook of developmental systems theory and methodology (pp. 425–441). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 96.Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Ching, C. M., Zhang, H., Shen, J., Arias, R. M., et al. (2013). Within-individual variability in self-concepts and personality states: Applying density distribution and situation-behavior approaches across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 922–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 97.Roesch, S. C., Aldridge, A. A., Stocking, S. N., Villodas, F., Leung, Q., Bartley, C. E., et al. (2010). Multilevel factor analysis and structural equation modeling of daily diary coping data: Modeling trait and state variation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 767–789.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 98.Schneider, S., Choi, S. W., Junghaenel, D. U., Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A. (2013). Psychometric characteristics of daily diaries for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®): a preliminary investigation. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1859–1869.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 102.Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2012). General random effect latent variable modeling: Random subjects, items, contexts, and parameters. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education.Google Scholar