Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study
BackgroundValidity is the ability of an instrument to measure what it claims to measure. It means the degree to which the empirical evidence supports the trustworthiness of interpretations based on the calculated scores. The hematological malignancy (HM) specific patient reported outcome measure (HM...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020-09-01
|
Series: | Frontiers in Pharmacology |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphar.2020.01308/full |
id |
doaj-45e08e23bbfc46dcbbab57c2dcf8e4ab |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-45e08e23bbfc46dcbbab57c2dcf8e4ab2020-11-25T03:26:25ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Pharmacology1663-98122020-09-011110.3389/fphar.2020.01308571065Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity StudyPushpendra Goswami0Esther N. Oliva1Tatyana Ionova2Roger Else3Jonathan Kell4Adele K. Fielding5Daniel M. Jennings6Marina Karakantza7Saad Al-Ismail8Graham P. Collins9Stewart McConnell10Catherine Langton11Magda J. Al-Obaidi12Metod Oblak13Sam Salek14School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United KingdomHaematology Unit, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano, Reggio Calabria, ItalySt. Petersburg State University Medical Center and Multinational Centre for Quality of Life Research, St. Petersburg, RussiaPatient Research Partner, Milton Keynes, United KingdomCardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, United KingdomUniversity College London Cancer Institute, London, United KingdomRoyal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, United KingdomLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United KingdomSingleton Hospital, ABM University Health Board, Swansea, United Kingdom0Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United KingdomLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United KingdomLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom1West Middlesex University Hospital, Isleworth, United Kingdom1West Middlesex University Hospital, Isleworth, United KingdomSchool of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United KingdomBackgroundValidity is the ability of an instrument to measure what it claims to measure. It means the degree to which the empirical evidence supports the trustworthiness of interpretations based on the calculated scores. The hematological malignancy (HM) specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO), is a newly developed instrument for use in daily clinical practice as well as in research. This study, provides the evidence for construct validity of the HM-PRO, specifically focusing on the convergent and divergent validity compared to the other established instruments used in hematology.MethodsThis validation study adopted a prospective cross-sectional design where a heterogeneous group of patients diagnosed with different HMs and different disease state were recruited. A total of 905 patients were recruited from seven secondary care hospitals in the UK and online through five patient organizations. Patients were asked to complete the HM-PRO and other cancer specific PRO’s, FACT-G and EORTC QLQ C-30. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 23 statistical software.ResultsA total of 486 males (53.7%) and 419 females (46.3%), with a mean age of 64.3 (± 12.4) years and mean time since diagnosis of 4.6 ( ± 5.2) were recruited. The total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with the five functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical = −0.71, Role = −0.72, Emotional = −0.64, Cognitive = −0.58, Social = −0.74—p < 0.001). With respect to correlation with FACT-G, the total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with Physical (−0.74), Emotional (−0.57), Functional (−0.66) domains and overall score of FACT-G (−0.74). Similarly, the total score of Part B of the HM-PRO highly correlated with three symptoms scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 (Fatigue scale = −0.74, Nausea and Vomiting = −0.52, Pain = −0.59—p < 0.001) and individual symptom items (Dyspnea = 0.51, Insomnia= 0.43, Appetite loss = 0.54—p < 0.001).ConclusionThe construct validity evidence presented in this research is a testimony to the HM-PRO’s ability to measure HRQoL issues which it intends to measure. This is of utmost importance when a PRO is used in routine clinical practice so that the interpretation of the scores or response to an individual item is understood by the clinicians/nurses as intended by the patients.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphar.2020.01308/fullhematological malignancyHM-PROquality of lifesymptomsconstruct validityclinical practice |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Pushpendra Goswami Esther N. Oliva Tatyana Ionova Roger Else Jonathan Kell Adele K. Fielding Daniel M. Jennings Marina Karakantza Saad Al-Ismail Graham P. Collins Stewart McConnell Catherine Langton Magda J. Al-Obaidi Metod Oblak Sam Salek |
spellingShingle |
Pushpendra Goswami Esther N. Oliva Tatyana Ionova Roger Else Jonathan Kell Adele K. Fielding Daniel M. Jennings Marina Karakantza Saad Al-Ismail Graham P. Collins Stewart McConnell Catherine Langton Magda J. Al-Obaidi Metod Oblak Sam Salek Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study Frontiers in Pharmacology hematological malignancy HM-PRO quality of life symptoms construct validity clinical practice |
author_facet |
Pushpendra Goswami Esther N. Oliva Tatyana Ionova Roger Else Jonathan Kell Adele K. Fielding Daniel M. Jennings Marina Karakantza Saad Al-Ismail Graham P. Collins Stewart McConnell Catherine Langton Magda J. Al-Obaidi Metod Oblak Sam Salek |
author_sort |
Pushpendra Goswami |
title |
Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study |
title_short |
Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study |
title_full |
Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study |
title_fullStr |
Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study |
title_full_unstemmed |
Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study |
title_sort |
hematological malignancy specific patient-reported outcome measure (hm-pro): construct validity study |
publisher |
Frontiers Media S.A. |
series |
Frontiers in Pharmacology |
issn |
1663-9812 |
publishDate |
2020-09-01 |
description |
BackgroundValidity is the ability of an instrument to measure what it claims to measure. It means the degree to which the empirical evidence supports the trustworthiness of interpretations based on the calculated scores. The hematological malignancy (HM) specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO), is a newly developed instrument for use in daily clinical practice as well as in research. This study, provides the evidence for construct validity of the HM-PRO, specifically focusing on the convergent and divergent validity compared to the other established instruments used in hematology.MethodsThis validation study adopted a prospective cross-sectional design where a heterogeneous group of patients diagnosed with different HMs and different disease state were recruited. A total of 905 patients were recruited from seven secondary care hospitals in the UK and online through five patient organizations. Patients were asked to complete the HM-PRO and other cancer specific PRO’s, FACT-G and EORTC QLQ C-30. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 23 statistical software.ResultsA total of 486 males (53.7%) and 419 females (46.3%), with a mean age of 64.3 (± 12.4) years and mean time since diagnosis of 4.6 ( ± 5.2) were recruited. The total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with the five functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical = −0.71, Role = −0.72, Emotional = −0.64, Cognitive = −0.58, Social = −0.74—p < 0.001). With respect to correlation with FACT-G, the total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with Physical (−0.74), Emotional (−0.57), Functional (−0.66) domains and overall score of FACT-G (−0.74). Similarly, the total score of Part B of the HM-PRO highly correlated with three symptoms scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 (Fatigue scale = −0.74, Nausea and Vomiting = −0.52, Pain = −0.59—p < 0.001) and individual symptom items (Dyspnea = 0.51, Insomnia= 0.43, Appetite loss = 0.54—p < 0.001).ConclusionThe construct validity evidence presented in this research is a testimony to the HM-PRO’s ability to measure HRQoL issues which it intends to measure. This is of utmost importance when a PRO is used in routine clinical practice so that the interpretation of the scores or response to an individual item is understood by the clinicians/nurses as intended by the patients. |
topic |
hematological malignancy HM-PRO quality of life symptoms construct validity clinical practice |
url |
https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphar.2020.01308/full |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT pushpendragoswami hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT esthernoliva hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT tatyanaionova hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT rogerelse hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT jonathankell hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT adelekfielding hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT danielmjennings hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT marinakarakantza hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT saadalismail hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT grahampcollins hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT stewartmcconnell hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT catherinelangton hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT magdajalobaidi hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT metodoblak hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy AT samsalek hematologicalmalignancyspecificpatientreportedoutcomemeasurehmproconstructvaliditystudy |
_version_ |
1724593025777139712 |