Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and validation of a patient reported outcome instrument for chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To develop and validate a specific patient reported outcome (PRO) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (COPD-PRO) at a set of standardized procedures.

Methods

Literature analysis, interview and group discussion were performed to draft an initial model of COPD-PRO. Thereafter, 65 clinicians and experts throughout China reviewed the draft scale. Then cognitive debriefing interviews with 40 patients were conducted to assess respondent comprehension of the scale. After that, the revised scale was validated through pre-testing and field-testing. Finally, the psychometric properties of the COPD-PRO were evaluated by indicators such as validity, reliability and responsiveness based on the data from 230 patients.

Results

The COPD-PRO contained 17 items in 3 domains: amelioration of clinical symptoms, satisfaction of health condition and satisfaction of treatment effect. The Cronbach's α, Split-half coefficient and test-retest coefficient were 0.806, 0.744, 0.703, respectively; the correlation coefficients between domains and overall scale were 0.835–0.963; 5 factors were extracted according to the conceptual model. The differences of the scale scores before and after treatment were statistically significant (P=0.000).

Conclusions

The COPDPRO has good validity, reliability and responsiveness. The COPD-PRO could provide patients' response to the treatments and then evaluate the effect of treatment in a standardized way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990–2020: global burden of disease study. Lancet 1997;349:1498–1504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Raherison C, Girodet PO. Epidemiology of COPD. Eur Respir Rev 2009;18:213–221.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Morbidity and mortality: 2009 chart book on cardiovascular, lung, and blood diseases. 1st ed. American: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute;2009:62–66.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, Pugsley SO, Chambers LW. A measure of quality of life for clinical trials in chronic lung disease. Thorax 1987;10:773–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jones PW, Quirk FH, Baveystock CM. The St George's respiratory questionnaire. Respir Med 1991;85:25–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Meguro M, Barley EA, Spencer S, Jones PW. Development and validation of an improved, COPD-specificversion of the St. George respiratory questionnaire. Chest 2007;2:456–463.

    Google Scholar 

  7. van der Molen T, Willemse BW, Schokker S, ten Hacken NH, Postma DS, Juniper EF. Development, validity and responsiveness of the clinical COPD questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones PW, Harding G, Berry P, Wiklund I, Chen WH, Kline Leidy N. Development and first validation of the COPD assessment test. Eur Respir J 2009;3:648–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, Barofsky I, Berzon R, Leidy NK, et al. Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res 2000;8:887–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, et al. 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 Health 2003;5:522–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. U.S Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. U.S. FDA, clinical/medical (Internet). 2009 Dec (cited 2011 Jan 5). Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceCompliance RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf

  12. Chen W, Liu JP. Application of patient-reported outcomes in clinical research on therapeutic efficacy. Chin J Integr Tradit West Med (Chin) 2009;8:746–749.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leung KF, Liu FB, Zhao L, Fang JQ, Chan K, Lin LZ. Development and validation of the Chinese quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005;3:26.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu FB, Wang WQ. Establishment of the spleen-stomach patients reported outcomes scale in Chinese medicine and the corresponding item selection. World Sci Technol Mod Tradit Chin Med (Chin) 2009;4:527–530.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Li H, Liang WX. Study and development of TCM Stroke Scale for quality of life measurement (1)—establishment of the scale. Liaoning J Tradit Chin Med (Chin) 2008;3:376–378.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chen XL, Liu FB, Guo L. Development of patient-reported outcome scale for myasthenia gravis: a psychometric test. J Chin Integr Med (Chin) 2010;2:121–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med 1995;10:1403–1409.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jamieson S. Likert scales: how to (ab) use them. Med Educ 2004;12:1217–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 1991;4(Suppl):142S–158S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;3:297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of healthrelated quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003;4:349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Donald L, Patrick. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs). An organizing tool for concepts, measures and applications. QoL Newsletter 2003;31:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL. Estimating clinically signifi cant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 2005;2:285–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2009;4:419–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fang JQ, ed. The methods and application of quality of life measurement. 1st ed. Beijing: Beijing Medical University Press; 2000:263–266.

  26. Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;3:239–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geriatric Department, Henan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, 450046, China

    Jian-sheng Li  (李建生) & Yang Xie  (谢 洋)

  2. Department of Respiratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, 450000, China

    Ming-hang Wang  (王明航), Xue-qing Yu  (余学庆) & Su-yun Li  (李素云)

Authors
  1. Jian-sheng Li  (李建生)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ming-hang Wang  (王明航)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xue-qing Yu  (余学庆)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Su-yun Li  (李素云)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yang Xie  (谢 洋)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Supported by 2011 Special Fund for Chinese Medicine-Scientific Research in the Public Interest of Ministry of Finance People's Republic of China and State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (No. 201107002)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Js., Wang, Mh., Yu, Xq. et al. Development and validation of a patient reported outcome instrument for chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. Chin. J. Integr. Med. 21, 667–675 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11655-014-1982-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11655-014-1982-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation