Journal of glaucoma · 2015
Identifying content for the glaucoma-specific item bank to measure quality-of-life parameters.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khadka Jyoti, McAlinden Colm, Craig Jamie E, Fenwick Eva K, Lamoureux Ecosse L, Pesudovs Konrad
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become essential clinical trial end points. However, a comprehensive, multidimensional, patient-relevant, and precise glaucoma-specific PRO instrument is not available. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify content for a new, glaucoma-specific, quality-of-life (QOL) item bank.
METHODS: Content identification was undertaken in 5 phases: (1) identification of extant items in glaucoma-specific instruments and the qualitative literature; (2) focus groups and interviews with glaucoma patients; (3) item classification and selection; (4) expert review and revision of items; and (5) cognitive interviews with patients.
RESULTS: A total of 737 unique items (extant items from PRO instruments, 247; qualitative articles, 14 items; focus groups and semistructured interviews, 476 items) were identified. These items were classified into 10 QOL domains. Four criteria (item redundancy, item inconsistent with domain definition, item content too narrow to have wider applicability, and item clarity) were used to remove and refine the items. After the cognitive interviews, the final minimally representative item set had a total of 342 unique items belonging to 10 domains: activity limitation (88), mobility (20), visual symptoms (19), ocular surface symptoms (22), general symptoms (15), convenience (39), health concerns (45), emotional well-being (49), social issues (23), and economic issues (22).
CONCLUSIONS: The systematic content identification process identified 10 QOL domains, which were important to patients with glaucoma. The majority of the items were identified from the patient-specific focus groups and semistructured interviews suggesting that the existing PRO instruments do not adequately address QOL issues relevant to individuals with glaucoma.
METHODS: Content identification was undertaken in 5 phases: (1) identification of extant items in glaucoma-specific instruments and the qualitative literature; (2) focus groups and interviews with glaucoma patients; (3) item classification and selection; (4) expert review and revision of items; and (5) cognitive interviews with patients.
RESULTS: A total of 737 unique items (extant items from PRO instruments, 247; qualitative articles, 14 items; focus groups and semistructured interviews, 476 items) were identified. These items were classified into 10 QOL domains. Four criteria (item redundancy, item inconsistent with domain definition, item content too narrow to have wider applicability, and item clarity) were used to remove and refine the items. After the cognitive interviews, the final minimally representative item set had a total of 342 unique items belonging to 10 domains: activity limitation (88), mobility (20), visual symptoms (19), ocular surface symptoms (22), general symptoms (15), convenience (39), health concerns (45), emotional well-being (49), social issues (23), and economic issues (22).
CONCLUSIONS: The systematic content identification process identified 10 QOL domains, which were important to patients with glaucoma. The majority of the items were identified from the patient-specific focus groups and semistructured interviews suggesting that the existing PRO instruments do not adequately address QOL issues relevant to individuals with glaucoma.