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
. 2020 Sep 8:11:1308.
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.01308. eCollection 2020.

Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study

Pushpendra Goswami  1 , Esther N Oliva  2 , Tatyana Ionova  3 , Roger Else  4 , Jonathan Kell  5 , Adele K Fielding  6 , Daniel M Jennings  7 , Marina Karakantza  8 , Saad Al-Ismail  9 , Graham P Collins  10 , Stewart McConnell  8 , Catherine Langton  8 , Magda J Al-Obaidi  11 , Metod Oblak  11 , Sam Salek  1
Affiliations

Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study

Pushpendra Goswami et al. Front Pharmacol. .

Abstract

Background: Validity is the ability of an instrument to measure what it claims to measure. It means the degree to which the empirical evidence supports the trustworthiness of interpretations based on the calculated scores. The hematological malignancy (HM) specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO), is a newly developed instrument for use in daily clinical practice as well as in research. This study, provides the evidence for construct validity of the HM-PRO, specifically focusing on the convergent and divergent validity compared to the other established instruments used in hematology.

Methods: This validation study adopted a prospective cross-sectional design where a heterogeneous group of patients diagnosed with different HMs and different disease state were recruited. A total of 905 patients were recruited from seven secondary care hospitals in the UK and online through five patient organizations. Patients were asked to complete the HM-PRO and other cancer specific PRO's, FACT-G and EORTC QLQ C-30. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 23 statistical software.

Results: A total of 486 males (53.7%) and 419 females (46.3%), with a mean age of 64.3 (± 12.4) years and mean time since diagnosis of 4.6 ( ± 5.2) were recruited. The total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with the five functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical = -0.71, Role = -0.72, Emotional = -0.64, Cognitive = -0.58, Social = -0.74-p < 0.001). With respect to correlation with FACT-G, the total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with Physical (-0.74), Emotional (-0.57), Functional (-0.66) domains and overall score of FACT-G (-0.74). Similarly, the total score of Part B of the HM-PRO highly correlated with three symptoms scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 (Fatigue scale = -0.74, Nausea and Vomiting = -0.52, Pain = -0.59-p < 0.001) and individual symptom items (Dyspnea = 0.51, Insomnia= 0.43, Appetite loss = 0.54-p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The construct validity evidence presented in this research is a testimony to the HM-PRO's ability to measure HRQoL issues which it intends to measure. This is of utmost importance when a PRO is used in routine clinical practice so that the interpretation of the scores or response to an individual item is understood by the clinicians/nurses as intended by the patients.

Keywords: HM-PRO; clinical practice; clinical research; construct validity; hematological malignancy; quality of life; symptoms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relationship between the emotional behavior domain of the HM-PRO and emotional function scale of the EORTC and emotional well-being domain of FACT-G.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aaronson N. K., Ahmedzai S., Bergman B., Bullinger M., Cull A., Duez N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85, 365–376. 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allart-Vorelli P., Porro B., Baguet F., Michel A., Cousson-Gelie F. (2015). Haematological cancer and quality of life: a systematic literature review. Blood Cancer J. 5, e305. 10.1038/bcj.2015.29 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Basch E., Deal A. M., Dueck A. C., Scher H. I., Kris M. G., Hudis C., et al. (2017). Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment. JAMA 318, 197–198. 10.1001/jama.2017.7156 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Basra M. K. A., Shahrukh M. (2009). Burden of skin diseases. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 9, 271–283. 10.1586/erp.09.23 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cella D., Jensen S. E., Webster K., Hongyan D., Lai J. S., Rosen S., et al. (2012). Measuring health-related quality of life in leukemia: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Leukemia (FACT-Leu) questionnaire. Value Health 15, 1051–1058. 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2210 - DOI - PubMed