Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2011 Jul 14:9:86.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-86.

Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science

Affiliations
Review

Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science

Stephen P McKenna. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Interest in the patient's views of his or her illness and treatment has increased dramatically. However, our ability to appropriately measure such issues lags far behind the level of interest and need. Too often such measurement is considered to be a simple and trivial activity that merely requires the application of common sense. However, good quality measurement of patient-reported outcomes is a complex activity requiring considerable expertise and experience. This review considers the most important issues related to such measurement in the context of chronic disease and details how instruments should be developed, validated and adapted for use in additional languages. While there is often consensus on how best to undertake these activities, there is generally little evidence to support such accord. The present article questions these orthodox views and suggests alternative approaches that have been shown to be effective.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Key considerations for patient-reported outcome questionnaire development. The major factors that should be considered when selecting a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) for use in clinical studies are shown. These emphasise the importance of ensuring that the PROM addresses the required outcome, that it has been carefully developed and that all versions developed (including language adaptations) are of good quality.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Employment-related needs. The relationships between function, objective and needs satisfaction are shown. Here employment is a function undertaken to obtain income. However, undertaking the function leads to the satisfaction of a range of needs (some of which are listed). Quality of life (QoL) is the result of satisfaction of the needs rather than earning an income per se.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Types of PROMs currently used in medical research. The range of different types of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is shown. The most commonly used PROMs assess symptoms and/or functional limitations. These are commonly referred to as health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures. The commonly used measures which generate utility values also ask about symptoms and/or functional limitations. Patient satisfaction is generally concerned with issues such as the process of treatment and relationships with clinical staff. QoL measures address need-fulfilment rather than symptoms and/or functional limitations.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Brief checklist for assessing the quality of PRO instruments. The specific requirements of a good-quality PROM are shown. These qualities should be clearly reported in peer-reviewed publications. In many cases (including that of the most commonly employed PROMs), this information is not available. New instrument development methodologies, in particular the establishment of the scaling properties of a measure (item response theory), are essential to ensuring the quality of PROMs.

References

    1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to Consequences of Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1980.
    1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
    1. Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, Rothman M. PRO Harmonization Group. Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report on the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003;5:522–531. - PubMed
    1. Burke LB, Kennedy DL, Miskala PH, Papadopoulos EJ, Trentacosti AM. The use of patient-reported outcome measures in the evaluation of medical products for regulatory approval. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;84:281–283. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2008.128. - DOI - PubMed
    1. EMEA; Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CMHP) Doc Ref EMEA/CHMP/EWP/139391/2004. London: European Medicines Agency; 2005. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products.http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guidelin...

MeSH terms