Measurement of the major ignored burden of multiple myeloma, pernicious anaemia and of other haematological conditions on partners and family members: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Having a haematological condition can adversely affect the quality of life (QoL) of family members/partners of patients. It is important to measure this often ignored burden in order to implement appropriate supportive interventions. OBJECTIVE: To measure current impact of haematological conditions on the QoL of family members/partners of patients, using the Family Reported Outcome Measure-16 (FROM-16). METHODS: A cross-sectional study, recruited online through patient support groups, involved UK family members/partners of people with haematological conditions completing the FROM-16. RESULTS: 183 family members/partners (mean age = 60.5 years, SD = 13.2; females = 62.8%) of patients (mean age = 64.1, SD = 12.8; females = 46.4%) with 12 haematological conditions completed the FROM-16. The FROM-16 mean total score was 14.0 (SD = 7.2), meaning 'a moderate effect on QoL'. The mean FROM-16 scores of family members of people with multiple myeloma (mean = 15.8, SD = 6.3, n = 99) and other haematological malignancies (mean = 13.9, SD = 7.8, n = 29) were higher than of people with pernicious anaemia (mean = 10.7, SD = 7.5, n = 47) and other non-malignant conditions (mean = 11, SD = 7.4, n = 56, p < .01). Over one third (36.1%, n = 183) of family members experienced a 'very large effect' (FROM-16 score>16) on their quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Haematological conditions, in particular those of malignant type, impact the QoL of family members/partners of patients. Healthcare professionals can now, using FROM-16, identify those most affected and should consider how to provide appropriate holistic support within routine practice.

Mapping of Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores to EQ-5D: algorithm to calculate utility values.

OBJECTIVE: Although decision scientists and health economists encourage inclusion of family member/informal carer utility in health economic evaluation, there is a lack of suitable utility measures comparable to patient utility measures such those based on the EQ-5D. This study aims to predict EQ-5D-3L utility values from Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores, to allow the use of FROM-16 data in health economic evaluation when EQ-5D data is not available. METHODS: Data from 4228 family members/partners of patients recruited to an online cross-sectional study through 58 UK-based patient support groups, three research support platforms and Welsh social services departments were randomly divided five times into two groups, to derive and test a mapping model. Split-half cross-validation was employed, resulting in a total of ten multinomial logistic regression models. The Monte Carlo simulation procedure was used to generate predicted EQ-5D-3L responses, and utility scores were calculated and compared against observed values. Mean error and mean absolute error were calculated for all ten validation models. The final model algorithm was derived using the entire sample. RESULTS: The model was highly predictive, and its repeated fitting using multinomial logistic regression demonstrated a stable model. The mean differences between predicted and observed health utility estimates ranged from 0.005 to 0.029 across the ten modelling exercises, with an average overall difference of 0.015 (a 2.2% overestimate, not of clinical importance). CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm developed will enable researchers and decision scientists to calculate EQ-5D health utility estimates from FROM-16 scores, thus allowing the inclusion of the family impact of disease in health economic evaluation of medical interventions when EQ-5D data is not available.

Family reported outcomes, an unmet need in the management of a patient's disease: appraisal of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A person's chronic health condition or disability can have a huge impact on the quality of life (QoL) of the whole family, but this important impact is often ignored. This literature review aims to understand the impact of patients' disease on family members across all medical specialities, and appraise existing generic and disease-specific family quality of life (QoL) measures. METHODS: The databases Medline, EMBASE, CINHAL, ASSIA, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for original articles in English measuring the impact of health conditions on patients' family members/partner using a valid instrument. RESULTS: Of 114 articles screened, 86 met the inclusion criteria. They explored the impact of a relative's disease on 14,661 family members, mostly 'parents' or 'mothers', using 50 different instruments across 18 specialities including neurology, oncology and dermatology, in 33 countries including the USA, China and Australia. These studies revealed a huge impact of patients' illness on family members. An appraisal of family QoL instruments identified 48 instruments, 42 disease/speciality specific and six generic measures. Five of the six generics are aimed at carers of children, people with disability or restricted to chronic disease. The only generic instrument that measures the impact of any condition on family members across all specialities is the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16). Although most instruments demonstrated good reliability and validity, only 11 reported responsiveness and only one reported the minimal clinically important difference. CONCLUSIONS: Family members' QoL is greatly impacted by a relative's condition. To support family members, there is a need for a generic tool that offers flexibility and brevity for use in clinical settings across all areas of medicine. FROM-16 could be the tool of choice, provided its robustness is demonstrated with further validation of its psychometric properties.

Comparison of the paper-based and electronic versions of the Dermatology Life Quality Index: evidence of equivalence.

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcome measures in electronic format has been increasing. However, these formats are usually not validated or compared with the original paper-based formats, so there is no evidence that they are completed in the same way. OBJECTIVES: To compare the conventional paper version with a web-based application (iPad® ) version of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) to assess equivalence of scores. METHODS: The study employed a randomized crossover design using a within-subjects comparison of the two formats of the questionnaire. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines were followed. Participants aged over 18 years with any confirmed skin condition were recruited from a teaching hospital dermatology outpatient clinic. Expected intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0·9 (α = 0·05). RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were recruited, median age 53·5 years (interquartile range 37·3-67·8; 43% male). The ICC showed high concordance between the total DLQI scores from paper and iPad versions (ICC 0·98; 95% confidence interval 0·97-0·99). Patients took a median of 78 s to complete the electronic version and 73 s for paper (P = 0·008): 76% preferred the electronic version and perceived completion to take a shorter time. CONCLUSIONS: There is high concordance and thus equivalence between the iPad and paper versions of the DLQI, with an ICC of 0·98, and a clear patient preference for the iPad version.