Search

Women diagnosed with heart failure report worse quality of life than men on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. An inherent assumption of PRO measures in heart failure is that women and men interpret questions about quality of life the same way. If this is not the case, the risk then becomes that the PRO scores cannot be used for valid comparison or to combine outcomes by subgroups of the population. Inability to compare subgroups validly is a broad issue and has implications for clinical trials, and it also has specific and important implications for identifying and beginning to address health inequities. We describe this threat to validity (the psychometric term is differential item functioning), why it is so important in heart-failure outcomes, the research that has been conducted thus far in this area, the gaps that remain, and what we can do to avoid this threat to validity. PROs bring unique information to clinical decision making, and the validity of PRO measures is key to interpreting differences in heart failure outcomes.

BackgroundTypical cancer research studies of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in the United States do not include country of origin when examining race and ethnic group differences. This population-based, cross-sectional study used an innovative methodology to examine how self-reported racial and ethnic groups, by country of origin, report differential HRQOL experiences after adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics, including socioeconomic status.MethodsRecruited from 4 cancer registries in California, Louisiana, and New Jersey, cancer survivors completed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures of fatigue, pain interference, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, physical function, ability to participate in social roles, and cognitive function. Latent profile analysis clustered survivors in HRQOL clusters based on including all the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System domains.ResultsThe 5366 participants (60% female; 40% male; average age of 59.8 years) included 17% Asian, 18% Black, 21% Hispanic, and 41% White survivors. Survivors were grouped into 4 clusters: high HRQOL (26%), average HRQOL (34%), low HRQOL (29%), and very low HRQOL (11%). Among many differences by race, ethnicity, and country of origin, Caribbean cancer survivors were more likely to be in the very low HRQOL cluster (odds ratio = 2.67, 95% confidence interval = 1.31 to 5.43) compared with non-Hispanic White survivors. Similarly, American Indian and Alaska Native, Cuban, Dominican, and Puerto Rican cancer survivors had relatively high percentages in the very low HRQOL cluster.ConclusionsThis study found statistically significant differences in HRQOL experience by race, ethnicity, and country of origin, even after adjusting for social determinants of health. These findings inform future HRQOL research to include these self-reported factors.