Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice

被引:221
作者
Valderas, Jose M. [1 ,2 ]
Alonso, Jordi [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manchester, Natl Sch Primary Care Res, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England
[2] Inst Municipal Invest Med, Hosp Mar, Hlth Serv Res Unit, E-08003 Barcelona, Spain
关键词
Classification; Construct; Measurement; Patient reported outcomes; Quality of life;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-008-9396-4
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose The umbrella term Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) has been successfully proposed for instruments measuring perceived health outcomes, but its relationship to current conceptual models remains to be established. Our aim was to develop a classification system for PRO measures based on a valid conceptual model. Methods We reviewed models and classification schemes of health outcomes and integrated them in a common conceptual framework, based on the models by Wilson and Cleary and the International Classification of Functioning (ICF). We developed a cross-classification system based on the minimum common set of consistent concepts identified in previous classifications, and specified categories based on the WHO International Classifications (ICD-10, and ICF). We exemplified the use of the classification system with selected PRO instruments. Results We identified three guiding concepts: (1) construct (the measurement object); (2) population (based on age, gender, condition, and culture); and (3) measurement model (dimensionality, metric, and adaptability). The application of the system to selected PRO measures demonstrated the feasibility of its use, and showed that most of them actually assess more than one construct. Conclusion This classification system of PRO measures, based on a valid integrated conceptual model, should allow the classification of most currently used instruments and may facilitate a more adequate selection and application of these instruments.
引用
收藏
页码:1125 / 1135
页数:11
相关论文
共 60 条
[21]  
Jette A.M., 2000, SURVEY MEASUREMENT W, P4
[22]  
Kaplan RM, 1998, OX MED PUBL, P69
[23]   A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING HEALTH INDEXES [J].
KIRSHNER, B ;
GUYATT, G .
JOURNAL OF CHRONIC DISEASES, 1985, 38 (01) :27-36
[24]   An evaluation of a patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing osteoarthritis impact [J].
Kosinski, Mark ;
Bjorner, Jakob B. ;
Ware, John E., Jr. ;
Sullivan, Elizabeth ;
Straus, Walter L. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 59 (07) :715-723
[25]   Measuring performance for treating heart attacks and heart failure: The case for outcomes measurement [J].
Krumholz, Harlan M. ;
Normand, Sharon-Lise T. ;
Spertus, John A. ;
Shahian, David M. ;
Bradley, Elizabeth H. .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2007, 26 (01) :75-85
[26]   Task force report of the patient-reported outcomes harmonization group: Too much harmony, not enough melody? [J].
Lenderking, W .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2003, 6 (05) :503-504
[27]   ROLE OF NEW HEALTH PRACTITIONERS IN A PREPAID GROUP-PRACTICE - PROVIDER DIFFERENCES IN PROCESS AND OUTCOMES OF MEDICAL-CARE [J].
LEVINE, DM ;
MORLOCK, LL ;
MUSHLIN, AI ;
SHAPIRO, S ;
MALITZ, FE .
MEDICAL CARE, 1976, 14 (04) :326-347
[28]   OVERVIEW OF HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY-OF-LIFE MEASURES [J].
MACKEIGAN, LD ;
PATHAK, DS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL PHARMACY, 1992, 49 (09) :2236-2245
[29]  
MCDOWELL I, 1996, MEASURING H IN PRESS
[30]   The needs-based approach to quality of life assessment [J].
McKenna, SP ;
Doward, LC .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2004, 7 :S1-S3