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
. 2022 Oct;25(5):2147-2154.
doi: 10.1111/hex.13373. Epub 2021 Oct 20.

Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient-oriented questionnaires

Catherine Hudon  1   2 , Alya Danish  1 , Mireille Lambert  3 , Dana Howse  4 , Monique Cassidy  5 , Olivier Dumont-Samson  1 , Judy Porter  6 , Donna Rubenstein  6 , Véronique Sabourin  6 , Shelley Doucet  7 , Vivian R Ramsden  8 , Mathieu Bisson  1 , Charlotte Schwarz  7 , Maud-Christine Chouinard  9
Affiliations

Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient-oriented questionnaires

Catherine Hudon et al. Health Expect. 2022 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely recognized as important tools for achieving a patient-centred approach in health research. While PROMs are subject to several stages of validation during development, even questionnaires with robust psychometric properties may challenge patient comfort and understanding.

Aim: Building on the experience of patient engagement in the PriCARE research programme, this paper outlines the team's response to concerns raised by patient partners regarding the administration of the questionnaire.

Methods: Based on a participatory action research design and the patient engagement framework in the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, PriCARE team members worked together to discuss concerns, review the questionnaires and come up with solutions. Data were collected through participant observation of team meetings.

Results: This paper demonstrates how patient partners were engaged in PriCARE and integrated into the programme's governance structure, focusing on the challenges that they raised regarding the questionnaires and how these were addressed by PriCARE team members in a six-step approach: (1) Recognizing patient partner concerns, discussing concerns and reframing the challenges; (2) Detailing and sharing evidence of the validity of the questionnaires; (3) Evaluating potential solutions; (4) Searching the literature for guidelines; (5) Creating guidelines; and (6) Sharing and refining guidelines.

Conclusion: This six-step approach demonstrates how research teams can integrate patient partners as equal members, develop meaningful collaboration through recognition of individual experiences and expertise and ensure that the patient perspective is taken into consideration in research and healthcare innovation.

Patient or public contribution: All patient partners from the PriCARE programme were actively involved in the six-step approach. They were also involved in the preparation of the manuscript.

Keywords: guidelines; patient engagement; patient-reported outcome measure; questionnaire.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Weldring T, Smith SM. Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2013;6:61‐68. 10.4137/HSI.S11093 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. U.S. Department of Health HS, FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation Research, U.S. Department of Health Human Services FDA, Center for Biologics Evaluation Research, U.S. Department of Health Human Services FDA, Center for Devices Radiological, Health . Guidance for industry: patient‐reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79. 10.1186/1477-7525-4-79 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient‐reported outcome measures used in patient‐centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(8):1889‐1905. 10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wiering B, de Boer D, Delnoij D. Patient involvement in the development of patient‐reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2017;20(1):11‐23. 10.1111/hex.12442 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Haywood KL, Staniszewska S, Chapman S. Quality and acceptability of patient‐reported outcome measures used in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):35‐52. 10.1007/s11136-011-9921-8 - DOI - PubMed