Skip to main content

An assessment of symptom burden in inflammatory bowel diseases to develop a patient preference-weighted symptom score

Quality of Life Research volume 29, pages 3387–3396 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients experience diverse symptoms and the impact of these different symptoms varies substantially. Current disease activity measures do not account for the relative importance of the different symptoms and severity levels. In this study, we aimed to quantify the relative importance of different symptoms for IBD patients and to develop a patient preference-weighted symptom (PWS) score to assess symptom burden in IBD.

Methods

We performed a choice-based conjoint analysis (CBCA) survey with 129 IBD patients to estimate the relative importance of four common IBD symptoms: stool frequency, abdominal pain, blood in stools, and urgency. We then developed the PWS score using the preferences obtained from the CBCA, which we validated against existing measures.

Results

CBCA revealed that urgency was the most important symptom to patients, followed by abdominal pain and blood in stools. Urgency associated with incontinence received particularly high scores and was perceived to be more than 3 times as important as urgency without incontinence. Our results confirmed that different symptoms are not equally bothersome, and we showed that the relation between symptom-level and importance is not linear. The PWS score, which we developed using these estimates was highly correlated with existing disease activity measures.

Conclusions

We quantified the relative importance of four common IBD symptoms and developed the PWS score for IBD, which takes the relative importance of different symptoms and symptom-levels into account. The PWS score can be used to obtain a patient-centered assessment of symptom burden.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Availability of data and material

Upon request from the corresponding author.

Code availability

Sawtooth Software (Provo, UT) was used for survey design, survey hosting, and hierarchical Bayes modeling. Statistical tests were performed using SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC). SAS code is available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Farrell, D., McCarthy, G., & Savage, E. (2016). Self-reported Symptom Burden in Individuals with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Journal of Crohns Colitis, 10(3), 315–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Best, W. R., Becktel, J. M., Singleton, J. W., & Kern, F., Jr. (1976). Development of a Crohn's disease activity index. National Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study. Gastroenterology, 70(3), 439–444.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Harvey, R., & Bradshaw, J. (1980). A simple index of Crohn's-disease activity. The Lancet, 315(8167), 514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lewis, J. D., Chuai, S., Nessel, L., Lichtenstein, G. R., Aberra, F. N., & Ellenberg, J. H. (2008). Use of the noninvasive components of the Mayo score to assess clinical response in ulcerative colitis. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 14(12), 1660–1666. https://doi.org/10.1002/ibd.20520.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Walmsley, R. S., Ayres, R. C., Pounder, R. E., & Allan, R. N. (1998). A simple clinical colitis activity index. Gut, 43(1), 29–32.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Falvey, J. D., Hoskin, T., Meijer, B., Ashcroft, A., Walmsley, R., Day, A. S., et al. (2015). Disease activity assessment in IBD: Clinical indices and biomarkers fail to predict endoscopic remission. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 21(4), 824–831. https://doi.org/10.1097/MIB.0000000000000341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khanna, R., Zou, G., D'Haens, G., Feagan, B. G., Sandborn, W. J., Vandervoort, M. K., et al. (2015). A retrospective analysis: The development of patient reported outcome measures for the assessment of Crohn's disease activity. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 41(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.13001.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jairath, V., Khanna, R., Zou, G. Y., Stitt, L., Mosli, M., Vandervoort, M. K., et al. (2015). Development of interim patient-reported outcome measures for the assessment of ulcerative colitis disease activity in clinical trials. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 42(10), 1200–1210. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.13408.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Spiegel, B. M., Hays, R. D., Bolus, R., Melmed, G. Y., Chang, L., Whitman, C., et al. (2014). Development of the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) gastrointestinal symptom scales. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 109(11), 1804–1814. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2014.237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kochar, B., Martin, C. F., Kappelman, M. D., Spiegel, B. M., Chen, W., Sandler, R. S., et al. (2018). Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (GI-PROMIS) symptom scales in subjects with inflammatory Bowel diseases. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 113(1), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2017.240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Craig, B. M., Reeve, B. B., Brown, P. M., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Lipscomb, J., et al. (2014). US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value Health, 17(8), 846–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2018). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics, 27(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mohamed, A. F., Hauber, A. B., Johnson, F. R., & Coon, C. D. (2010). Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 3(4), 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Alrubaiy, L., Rikaby, I., Sageer, M., Hutchings, H. A., & Williams, J. G. (2015). Systematic review of the clinical disease severity indices for inflammatory bowel disease. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 21(10), 2460–2466. https://doi.org/10.1097/MIB.0000000000000438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bridges, J. F., Hauber, A. B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L. A., Regier, D. A., et al. (2011). Conjoint analysis applications in health—A checklist: A report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health, 14(4), 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ryan, M., & Farrar, S. (2000). Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ, 320(7248), 1530–1533.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Walsh, A. J., Bryant, R. V., & Travis, S. P. (2016). Current best practice for disease activity assessment in IBD. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 13(10), 567.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. The CBC System for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. Version 9 (2017). Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series.

  19. Sawtooth Software, CBC/HB v5, Software for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation for CBC Data. Manual. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/CBCHB_Manual.pdf.

  20. Hauber, A. B., Gonzalez, J. M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G., Prior, T., Marshall, D. A., Cunningham, C., et al. (2016). Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health, 19(4), 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Orme, B., & Johnson, R. (2014). Including holdout choice tasks in conjoint studies. Sawtooth Software, Inc. Retrieved July 23, 2020. from https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/general-conjoint-analysis/including-holdout-choice-tasks-in-conjoint-studies-2014.

  22. Chrzan, K., Zepp, J., & White, J. (2010). The success of choice-based conjoint designs among respondents making lexicographic choices. In 2010 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 19–35). Newport Beach, CA.

  23. Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2006). Deleting ‘irrational’responses from discrete choice experiments: A case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Economics, 15(8), 797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hess, S., Rose, J. M., & Polak, J. (2010). Non-trading, lexicographic and inconsistent behaviour in stated choice data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15(7), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Evertsz, F. B., Hoeks, C. C., Nieuwkerk, P. T., Stokkers, P. C., Ponsioen, C. Y., Bockting, C. L., et al. (2013). Development of the patient harvey bradshaw index and a comparison with a clinician-based Harvey Bradshaw index assessment of Crohn's disease activity. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 47(10), 850–856. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0b013e31828b2196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Orme, B. (2010). Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research (2nd ed.). Madison, WS: Research Publishers LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bossuyt, P., & Vermeire, S. (2016). Treat to target in inflammatory bowel disease. Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology, 14(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Colombel, J.-F., Panaccione, R., Bossuyt, P., Lukas, M., Baert, F., Vaňásek, T., et al. (2017). Effect of tight control management on Crohn's disease (CALM): a multicentre, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. The Lancet, 390(10114), 2779–2789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., & Louviere, J. J. (2010). What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Marketing Letters, 21(4), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funds from the University of Southern California Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science.

Funding

This work was supported by funds from the University of Southern California Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science. The funding agency was not involved in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the data.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Cedars-Sinai, 116 N. Robertson Blvd, PACT 800, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA

    Welmoed K. van Deen

  2. Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Welmoed K. van Deen

  3. Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Alexandra Obremskey

  4. Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Graham Moore & Caroline Hwang

  5. Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    M. Elske van den Akker-van Marle

  6. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Jason N. Doctor

Authors
  1. Welmoed K. van Deen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandra Obremskey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Graham Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Elske van den Akker-van Marle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jason N. Doctor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Caroline Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

WKD and CH conceived the study. WKD, AO, MEAM and JND designed the methodology, GM and CH collected data, WKD, AO and GM performed the data analyses, WKD and AO wrote the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Welmoed K. van Deen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors disclose any conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) under protocol number HS-17-00308.

Consent to participate

All participants were provided with an IRB-approved information sheet explaining the study procedures and verbally consented to participate in the survey. Written consent forms were obtained to extract medical information from the electronic medical record.

Consent for publication

All participants were informed that in any written reports or publications no one will be identified or identifiable and only aggregate data will be presented.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1172 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Deen, W.K., Obremskey, A., Moore, G. et al. An assessment of symptom burden in inflammatory bowel diseases to develop a patient preference-weighted symptom score. Qual Life Res 29, 3387–3396 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02606-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02606-2

Keywords

  • Inflammatory bowel diseases
  • Symptoms
  • Patient preferences
  • Conjoint analysis