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
. 2019 Jan 25;21(1):e12075.
doi: 10.2196/12075.

A Modular Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument for Electronic Assessment and Treatment Monitoring: Web-Based Development and Psychometric Validation of Core Thrive Items

Affiliations

A Modular Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument for Electronic Assessment and Treatment Monitoring: Web-Based Development and Psychometric Validation of Core Thrive Items

Paul Wicks et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures describe natural history, manage disease, and measure the effects of interventions in trials. Patients themselves increasingly use Web-based PRO tools to track their progress, share their data, and even self-experiment. However, existing PROs have limitations such as being: designed for paper (not screens), long and burdensome, negatively framed, under onerous licensing restrictions, either too generic or too specific.

Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate the core items of a modular, patient-centric, PRO system (Thrive) that could measure health status across a range of chronic conditions with minimal burden.

Methods: Thrive was developed in 4 phases, largely consistent with Food and Drug Administration guidance regarding PRO development. First, preliminary core items (common across multiple conditions: core Thrive items) were developed through literature review, analysis of approximately 20 existing PROs on PatientsLikeMe, and feedback from psychometric and content experts. Second, 2 rounds of cognitive interviews were iteratively conducted with patients (N=14) to obtain feedback on the preliminary items. Third, core Thrive items were administered electronically along with comparator measures, including 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF)-20 and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, to a large sample (N=2002) of adults with chronic diseases through the PatientsLikeMe platform. On the basis of theoretical and empirical rationale, items were revised or removed. Fourth, the revised core Thrive items were administered to another sample of patients (N=704) with generic and condition-specific comparator measures. A psychometric evaluation, which included both modern and classical test theory approaches, was conducted on these items, and several more items were removed.

Results: Cognitive interviews helped to remove confusing or redundant items. Empirical testing of subscales revealed good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha=.712-.879), test-retest reliability (absolute intraclass correlations=.749-.912), and convergent validity with legacy PRO scales (eg, Pearson r=.5-.75 between Thrive subscales and PHQ-9 total). The finalized instrument consists of a 19-item core including 5 multi-item subscales: Core symptoms, Abilities, Mobility, Sleep, and Thriving. Results provide evidence of construct (content, convergent) validity, high levels of test-retest and internal consistency reliability, and the ability to detect change over time. The items did not exhibit bias based on gender or age, and the items generally functioned similarly across conditions. These results support the use of Thrive Core items across diverse chronic patient populations.

Conclusions: Thrive appears to be a useful approach for capturing important domains for patients with chronic conditions. This core set serves as a foundation to begin developing modular condition-specific versions in the near future. Cross-walking against traditional PROs from the PatientsLikeMe platform is underway, in addition to clinical validation and comparison with biomarkers. Thrive is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0.

Keywords: health-related quality of life; patient reported outcome measures; personal health records.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: PW, MH, and JH are employees of PatientsLikeMe and hold stock options in the company. KG, SM, and RB conducted this work as paid consultants to PatientsLikeMe. PW is an associate editor at the Journal of Medical Internet Research and is on the editorial boards of BMJ, BMC Medicine, and Digital Biomarkers.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of validation process, adapted from the Food and Drug Administration (2009) guidance for industry. PLM: PatientsLikeMe.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Sample additional items for 2 conditions based on health care professional review. MS: multiple sclerosis; PTSD: posttraumatic stress disorder.

Similar articles

References

    1. Kluetz PG, O'Connor DJ, Soltys K. Incorporating the patient experience into regulatory decision making in the USA, Europe, and Canada. Lancet Oncol. 2018 May;19(5):e267–74. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30097-4.S1470-2045(18)30097-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lowe MM, Blaser DA, Cone L, Arcona S, Ko J, Sasane R, Wicks P. Increasing patient involvement in drug development. Value Health. 2016;19(6):869–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.009. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098-3015(16)30432-6 S1098-3015(16)30432-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy N, 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 of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003;6(5):522–31. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65309.x. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098-3015(10)60165-9 S1098-3015(10)60165-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Emery MP, Perrier LL, Acquadro C. Patient-reported outcome and quality of life instruments database (PROQOLID): frequently asked questions. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005 Mar 8;3:12. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-12. https://hqlo.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7525-3-12 1477-7525-3-12 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Perret C, Perrier L, Castex M, Acquadro C. Proqolid database: evolution of content, structure, and functionalities (2012-2016)-integration in eprovide, a new online platform dedicated to clinical outcome assessment (Coa) research. Value Health. 2016 Nov;19(7):A369. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.131. - DOI

Publication types