How to determine the quality of a questionnaire according to the CONsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments? A simplified guide to the measurement properties of assessment instruments - Part II: validity, responsiveness, interpretability and a checklist for characterizing the quality of instruments
Como determinar a qualidade de um questionário de acordo com o COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments? Um guia simplificado sobre as propriedades de medida de instrumentos de avaliação - Parte II: validade, responsividade, interpretabilidade e checklist para caracterização da qualidade dos instrumentos
Thaís Cristina Chaves; Thamiris Costa de Lima; Juliana H. Padilha Spavieri; Ana Carolina de Jacomo Claudio; Roger Berg Rodrigues Pereira; Mariana Romano de Lira
Abstract
Keywords
Resumo
JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: O tipo de questionário que pretende captar a percepção/visão de um paciente sobre um aspecto a ser medido (ex: intensidade da dor) é chamado de Instrumento de Medida Baseado no Relato do Paciente (Patient Reported Outcome Measure - PROM). Um dos maiores desafios que clínicos e pesquisadores costumam enfrentar é quanto a tomada de decisão sobre qual PROM utilizar para a avaliação de seu paciente com dor, especialmente devido à falta do letramento científico necessário para entender os critérios e termos empregados na área de propriedades de medida. Assim, os objetivos deste estudo (parte II) foram: (I) introduzir conceitos básicos sobre PROMs com enfoque na terminologia e critérios definidos através do COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), e (2) descrever as propriedades de medida dos domínios validade, responsividade e interpretabilidade e propor um checklist para avaliação da qualidade das propriedades de medida de PROMs.
MÉTODOS: Utilizando uma busca voltada para os artigos da iniciativa COSMIN, foi elaborado o presente estudo de revisão, que foi dividido em duas partes para fins didáticos.
RESULTADOS: O presente artigo compreendeu a descrição das propriedades de medida dos domínios de validade (conteúdo, estrutural, construto), responsividade (deve ser avaliada através de análises de acurácia, AUC≥0,70) e interpretabilidade (que fornece a mínima mudança clinicamente importante). Além disso, foi proposto um checklist para determinação da qualidade das propriedades de medida de instrumentos de avaliação.
CONCLUSÃO: Este estudo descreveu as propriedades de medida dentro dos domínios validade e responsividade, e a importância da interpretabilidade para a obtenção da mínima diferença clinicamente importante. O checklist proposto para avaliação dessas propriedades pode auxiliar clínicos e pesquisadores a determinarem a qualidade de um instrumento e tomar a decisão sobre a melhor opção disponível.
Palavras-chave
Referências
1 Øvretveit J, Zubkoff L, Nelson EC, Frampton S, Knudsen JL, Zimlichman E. Using patient-reported outcome measurement to improve patient care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2017;29(6):874-9.
2 Elsman EBM, Mokkink LB, Langendoen-Gort M, Rutters F, Beulens J, Elders PJM, Terwee CB. Systematic review on the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2022;10(3):e002729.
3 Davidson M, Keating J. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): how should I interpret reports of measurement properties? A practical guide for clinicians and researchers who are not biostatisticians. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(9):792-6.
4 Swinkels RA, van Peppen RP, Wittink H, Custers JW, Beurskens AJ. Current use and barriers and facilitators for implementation of standardised measures in physical therapy in the Netherlands. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;22;12:106.
5 Mokkink LB, Boers M, van der Vleuten CPM, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, De Vet HCW, and Terwee CB. COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:293.
6 Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-45.
7 Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, Terwee CB. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171-9.
8 Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW, Mokkink LB. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159-70.
9 Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, et al. Content Validity—Establishing and Reporting the Evidence in Newly Developed Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments for Medical Product Evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report: Part 1—Eliciting Concepts for a New PRO Instrument. Value Health. 2011;14(8):967-77.
10 Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther. 1999;79(4):371-83.
11 Ackelman BH, Lindgren U. Validity and reliability of a modified version of the neck disability index. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34(6):284-7
12 Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L. Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient- -reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1--eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14(8):967-77.
13 De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine - A practical guide. 1st edition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
14 Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, Terwee CB. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171-9.
15 Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, Williamson PR, Terwee CB. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016 Sep 13;17(1):449.
16 Aguiar AS, Bataglion C, Visscher CM, Bevilaqua Grossi D, Chaves TC. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and construct validity of the Tampa scale for kinesiophobia for temporomandibular disorders (TSK/TMD-Br) into Brazilian Portuguese. J Oral Rehabil. 2017;44(7):500-510.
17 Nusbaum L, Natour J, Ferraz MB, Goldenberg J. Translation, adaptation and validation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire--Brazil Roland-Morris. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2001;34(2):203-10.
18 Vigatto R, Alexandre NMC, Filho HRC. Development of a Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2007;32(4):481–6.
19 Cardoso JR, Pereira LM, Iversen MD, Ramos AL. What is gold standard and what is ground truth? Dental Press J Orthod. 2014;19(5):27-30.
20 Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-83.
21 Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994;23(2):129-38.
22 Vaegter HB, Handberg G, Kent P. Brief psychological screening questions can be useful for ruling out psychological conditions in patients with chronic pain. Clin J Pain. 2018;34(2):113-21.
23 Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147-57.
24 Bot AGJ, Nota SPFT, Ring D. The Creation of an Abbreviated Version of the PSEQ: the PSEQ-2. Psychosomatics. 2014;55(4):381-5.
25 Bull C, Teede H, Watson D, Callander EJ. Selecting and Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures to Assess Health System Performance. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(4):e220326.
26 Chiarotto A, Vanti C, Cedraschi C, Ferrari S, de Lima E Sà Resende F, Ostelo RW, Pillastrini P. Responsiveness and Minimal Important Change of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and Short Forms in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain. J Pain. 2016;17(6):707-18.
27 Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42
28 Turner GM, Litchfield I, Finnikin S, Aiyegbusi OL, Calvert M. General practitioners’ views on use of patient reported outcome measures in primary care: a cross-sectional survey and qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):14.
29 Pradela J, Bevilaqua-Grossi D, Chaves TC, Dach F, Carvalho GF. Measurement properties of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6TM Brazil) in primary and secondary headaches. Headache. 2021;11;61(3):527-35.
30 Castien RF, Blankenstein AH, Windt DA, Dekker J. Minimal clinically important change on the Headache Impact Test-6 questionnaire in patients with chronic tension- type headache. Cephalalgia. 2012;32(9):710-4
31 Jumbo SU, MacDermid JC, Kalu ME, Packham TL, Athwal GS, Faber KJ. Measurement Properties of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and Revised Short McGill Pain Questionnaire Version-2 (SF-MPQ-2) in Pain-related Musculoskeletal Conditions: a Systematic Review. Clin J Pain. 2021;37(6):454-74.
Submetido em:
06/09/2023
Aceito em:
10/10/2023
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email