Display options
Cite
Grove BE, Schougaard LMV, Ivarsen PR, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures for clinical decision-making in outpatient follow-up: validity and reliability of a renal disease questionnaire. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5(1):107doi: 10.1186/s41687-021-00384-0.
Grove, B. E., Schougaard, L. M. V., Ivarsen, P. R., Kyte, D., Hjollund, N. H., & de Thurah, A. (2021). Patient-reported outcome measures for clinical decision-making in outpatient follow-up: validity and reliability of a renal disease questionnaire. Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 5(1), 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00384-0
Grove, Birgith Engelst, et al. "Patient-reported outcome measures for clinical decision-making in outpatient follow-up: validity and reliability of a renal disease questionnaire." Journal of patient-reported outcomes vol. 5,1 (2021): 107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00384-0
Grove BE, Schougaard LMV, Ivarsen PR, Kyte D, Hjollund NH, de Thurah A. Patient-reported outcome measures for clinical decision-making in outpatient follow-up: validity and reliability of a renal disease questionnaire. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021 Oct 16;5(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s41687-021-00384-0. PMID: 34655365; PMCID: PMC8520563.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021 Oct 16;5(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s41687-021-00384-0.

Patient-reported outcome measures for clinical decision-making in outpatient follow-up: validity and reliability of a renal disease questionnaire.

Journal of patient-reported outcomes

Birgith Engelst Grove, Liv Marit Valen Schougaard, Per Ramløv Ivarsen, Derek Kyte, Niels Henrik Hjollund, Annette de Thurah

Affiliations

  1. AmbuFlex, Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Herning, Denmark. [email protected].
  2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. [email protected].
  3. AmbuFlex, Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Herning, Denmark.
  4. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  5. Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark.
  6. School of Allied Health and Community, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK.
  7. Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  8. AmbuFlex/WestChronic, Occupational Medicine, University Research Clinic, Aarhus University, Herning, Denmark.
  9. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark.
  10. Department of Rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark.

PMID: 34655365 PMCID: PMC8520563 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-021-00384-0

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used by clinicians to support communication in telephone- or face-to-face consultations with patients. A renal disease questionnaire has been developed, but not sufficiently evaluated through clinimetrics in clinical setting. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the content validity, construct validity and the test-retest reliability of a renal disease questionnaire to be used for clinical decision-making.

METHODS: A content, construct validity and test-retest reliability study was conducted in 3 nephrology outpatient clinics in Central Denmark Region, Denmark. Content validity (face validity, comprehensibility and relevance) was assessed among 8 patients and 6 clinicians. Reliability was assessed by asking outpatients with chronic kidney disease to complete the questionnaire twice. Reliability was assessed by kappa statistics and agreement by percentage. Construct validity was determined using 4 a priori defined hypotheses and comparing 2 known groups.

RESULTS: Five new domains emerged, 6 items were rephrased and 3 items were removed following the content validity test. A total of 160 patients completed the questionnaire with median 8 days (IQR 2 days) between assessments. The test-retest reliability parameters of the single items in the questionnaire were substantial to almost perfect as all the observed weighted kappa values ranged from 0.61 to 0.91, 95% CI (0.34 to 0.95). In total, 61% of the single items showed almost perfect agreement. In total, 3 of the 4 hypotheses were accepted and 44% of the items showed satisfying known-group discriminative validity.

CONCLUSION: A renal disease questionnaire used for clinical decision-making in outpatient follow-up showed acceptable content validity and substantial to almost perfect reliability. Sufficient construct validity was not established. Incorporating the questionnaire into routine clinical practice may improve the evaluation of disease burden in patients with chronic kidney disease. We ask patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Central Region Denmark to complete a questionnaire before each outpatient visit. The answers they provide are used to support communication with their health care provider. A questionnaire requires testing to ensure it can accurately capture important information about patient's symptoms and quality of life. When questionnaires are used to support communication between patients and health care professionals, they need to have good measurement properties. This means they need to be: (1) trustworthy, (2) relevant to a patient's health condition, (3) consistent and produce stable results every time. We explored the measurement properties of a questionnaire designed to be used in the face-to face outpatient visits for patients with CKD. We found that the questionnaire captured consistent and stable results. Using this questionnaire may help health care professionals to assess the patients´ burden of symptoms with a more patient-centered approach. Potentially, the use of the questionnaire will increase the patients´ ability to cope with their symptoms and strengthen patients´ involvement in the clinical decisions concerning their treatment.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Keywords: Ambulatory care; Patient reported outcome measures; Renal insufficiency; Reproducibility of results

References

  1. J Adv Nurs. 2003 Apr;42(1):57-63 - PubMed
  2. JAMA. 1995 Jan 4;273(1):59-65 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45 - PubMed
  4. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76 - PubMed
  5. JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):306-307 - PubMed
  6. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2021 Apr 26;36(5):862-870 - PubMed
  7. J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 10;32(14):1480-501 - PubMed
  8. Qual Life Res. 2008 Mar;17(2):179-93 - PubMed
  9. Kidney Int. 2009 Nov;76(9):946-52 - PubMed
  10. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Feb;45(3):347-53 - PubMed
  11. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 Jan 9;4(1):3 - PubMed
  12. Qual Life Res. 2002 May;11(3):193-205 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1001-11 - PubMed
  14. J Comp Eff Res. 2016 Aug;5(5):507-19 - PubMed
  15. J Nephrol. 2008 Mar-Apr;21 Suppl 13:S84-91 - PubMed
  16. Nephron Clin Pract. 2007;105(1):c1-8 - PubMed
  17. Qual Life Res. 2012 Oct;21(8):1305-14 - PubMed
  18. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Sep 5;2:38 - PubMed
  19. Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):539-49 - PubMed
  20. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009 Mar;64(2):212-21 - PubMed
  21. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2021 Aug 27;36(9):1685-1693 - PubMed
  22. Qual Life Res. 1994 Oct;3(5):329-38 - PubMed
  23. Kidney Int. 2003 Jul;64(1):339-49 - PubMed
  24. JAMA. 2002 Dec 18;288(23):3027-34 - PubMed
  25. Br J Cancer. 2002 Jan 7;86(1):51-9 - PubMed
  26. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012 Jun 18;10:71 - PubMed
  27. Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Mar 15;173(6):676-82 - PubMed
  28. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Feb 15;22(4):714-24 - PubMed
  29. Psychother Psychosom. 2012;81(6):333-43 - PubMed
  30. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65 - PubMed
  31. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83 - PubMed
  32. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 Mar;70(3):353-360 - PubMed
  33. BMC Nephrol. 2012 Dec 13;13:170 - PubMed
  34. BMC Nephrol. 2017 Apr 3;18(1):119 - PubMed
  35. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013 Sep;62(3):541-8 - PubMed
  36. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Jun;23(6):508-18 - PubMed
  37. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):991-9 - PubMed
  38. Qual Life Res. 2016 Mar;25(3):525-34 - PubMed
  39. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2005;39(6):498-502 - PubMed
  40. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020 Sep;72(9):1331-1338 - PubMed
  41. J Ren Care. 2013 Sep;39(3):140-50 - PubMed
  42. J Ren Care. 2015 Sep;41(3):146-55 - PubMed
  43. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1189-202 - PubMed
  44. West J Nurs Res. 2016 Aug;38(8):1067-82 - PubMed
  45. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Sep 30;21(9):e15856 - PubMed
  46. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007 Sep;2(5):919-25 - PubMed
  47. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010 Jan;25(1):160-6 - PubMed
  48. Lancet. 2017 Sep 2;390(10098):959-968 - PubMed
  49. BMC Res Notes. 2018 Jun 8;11(1):371 - PubMed
  50. Qual Life Res. 2019 Mar;28(3):567-592 - PubMed
  51. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42 - PubMed
  52. Qual Life Res. 2015 Jul;24(7):1707-18 - PubMed
  53. Fam Med. 2005 May;37(5):360-3 - PubMed
  54. Lancet. 2012 Jan 14;379(9811):165-80 - PubMed
  55. Interact J Med Res. 2014 Feb 11;3(1):e5 - PubMed
  56. PLoS One. 2017 Jun 21;12(6):e0179733 - PubMed
  57. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74 - PubMed
  58. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):96-106 - PubMed
  59. Acta Oncol. 2020 Apr;59(4):444-452 - PubMed
  60. Physiother Res Int. 2003;8(4):167-77 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support