Search

This study assessed the content validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based measures (PBMs) with patients treated for cancer, evaluated against 10 Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity, to best inform measurement strategies regarding the use of PBMs in oncology development programs and real-world applications. Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients who received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom (n = 47) and the United States (n = 49). During the interview, patients completed 3 generic PBMs (EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure–Short Form, Château Santé Base) and 2 condition-specific PBMs (Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension [FACT-8D]). Interviews were conducted via teleconference, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using thematic and content analysis methods. Condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Overall, the FACT-8D was evaluated as holding the best content validity in terms of relevancy, and the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure–Short Form received the most favorable evaluation of relevancy for generic PBMs. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, with all suggested by patients to be missing concepts. The EQ-5D-5L was evaluated best in terms of comprehensibility. This was followed by the Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension and FACT-8D; both received similar evaluations. All measures were generally seen by patients as adequate in capturing appropriate aspects of health-related quality of life for measuring cancer outcomes, although together condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Further health-related quality of life instrument development is encouraged, particularly with regard to the longer-term detrimental impacts of cancer and treatment side effects. Other developments could include new cancer-specific tools inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items. • Generic preference-based measures (PBMs) are recommended to assess patient-reported outcomes across interventions and to allow for comparative assessments across unrelated health conditions and interventions. Generic PBMs may exclude dimensions relevant to specific conditions, whereas condition-specific PBMs can contain items related to specific symptoms. Recent work has identified several concepts that are relevant to health-related quality of life and psychological wellbeing, which are not measured by existing outcome measures. • Patients who had received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom and the United States evaluated 3 generic and 2 condition-specific PBMs during qualitative interviews. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, missing concepts considered by patients as important to measure for their cancer and cancer treatment experiences. Language and format were frequently challenged, with patients suggesting changes to multiple items across all measures. Recall periods were frequently raised as problematic because of the substantial variation in cancer symptoms within a given day or week. • Given the burden of cancer symptoms and drug treatment effects, capturing all relevant outcomes of people with cancer is necessary to inform accurate decision making for cancer technologies. Modification of existing measures should be considered with regard to measurement gaps identified. New cancer-specific tools could be considered, inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items. These developments have a large potential for impact given the high proportions of oncology health technology assessment submissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aimed to develop and assess the content validity of a patient-reported outcomes (PROs) instrument to measure symptoms and impacts experienced by patients with active multiple myeloma (MM).Methods: The PRO instrument was developed using an iterative, mixed-methods approach. The list of concepts was generated based on a review of existing evidence (qualitative studies and literature) and post hoc psychometric evaluations of 2 PRO instruments in 3 clinical trials. A total of 30 adult patients with MM from the United States participated in hybrid concept elicitation/cognitive debriefing interviews to validate the content validity of the newly developed PRO instrument. Translatability assessment was completed in 8 languages.Results: The item generation process resulted in 17 symptom and 9 impact concepts for evaluation. The concept elicitation interviews and analysis were based on the first 25 participants; evidence of saturation was observed. The cognitive debriefing interviews and analysis were based on the last 23 participants across 4 waves of interviews. On the basis patient feedback, 10 items were removed, and 1 item was added to the PRO instrument. The translatability assessment resulted in 1 minor revision. The multiple myeloma symptom and impact questionnaire (MySIm-Q) includes 11 symptom and 6 impact concepts, organized within 8 hypothesized subdomains, with each concept measured using a 5-point verbal rating scale and a 7-day recall period.Conclusions: The MySIm-Q instrument was developed using rigorous and mixed methodology and with direct input from patients who received a diagnosis of MM. The MySIm-Q has good content validity and is culturally relevant for use in global clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The importance of content validity in developing patient reported outcomes (PRO) instruments is stressed by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. Content validity is the extent to which an instrument measures the important aspects of concepts developers or users purport it to assess. A PRO instrument measures the concepts most relevant and important to a patient''s condition and its treatment. For PRO instruments, items and domains as reflected in the scores of an instrument should be important to the target population and comprehensive with respect to patient concerns. Documentation of target population input in item generation, as well as evaluation of patient understanding through cognitive interviewing, can provide the evidence for content validity. Part 1 of this task force report covers elicitation of key concepts using qualitative focus groups and/or interviews to inform content and structure of a new PRO instrument. Building on qualitative interviews and focus groups used to elicit concepts, cognitive interviews help developers craft items that can be understood by respondents in the target population and can ultimately confirm that the final instrument is appropriate, comprehensive, and understandable in the target population. Part 2 details: 1) the methods for conducting cognitive interviews that address patient understanding of items, instructions, and response options; and 2) the methods for tracking item development through the various stages of research and preparing this tracking for submission to regulatory agencies. The task force report''s two parts are meant to be read together. They are intended to offer suggestions for good practice in planning, executing, and documenting qualitative studies that are used to support the content validity of PRO instruments to be used in medical product evaluation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The importance of content validity in developing patient reported outcomes (PRO) instruments is stressed by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. Content validity is the extent to which an instrument measures the important aspects of concepts that developers or users purport it to assess. A PRO instrument measures the concepts most significant and relevant to a patient''s condition and its treatment. For PRO instruments, items and domains as reflected in the scores of an instrument should be important to the target population and comprehensive with respect to patient concerns. Documentation of target population input in item generation, as well as evaluation of patient understanding through cognitive interviewing, can provide the evidence for content validity. Developing content for, and assessing respondent understanding of, newly developed PRO instruments for medical product evaluation will be discussed in this two-part ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Topics include the methods for generating items, documenting item development, coding of qualitative data from item generation, cognitive interviewing, and tracking item development through the various stages of research and preparing this tracking for submission to regulatory agencies. Part 1 covers elicitation of key concepts using qualitative focus groups and/or interviews to inform content and structure of a new PRO instrument. Part 2 covers the instrument development process, the assessment of patient understanding of the draft instrument using cognitive interviews and steps for instrument revision. The two parts are meant to be read together. They are intended to offer suggestions for good practices in planning, executing, and documenting qualitative studies that are used to support the content validity of PRO instruments to be used in medical product evaluation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]