Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Response process validity of three patient reported outcome measures for people requiring kidney care: a think-aloud study using the EQ-5D-5L, ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O.
Mitchell, Paul Mark; Caskey, Fergus John; Scott, Jemima; Sanghera, Sabina; Coast, Joanna.
Afiliación
  • Mitchell PM; Health Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK paul.mitchell@bristol.ac.uk.
  • Caskey FJ; Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Scott J; UK Renal Registry, Southmead Hospital Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Sanghera S; North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
  • Coast J; UK Renal Registry, Southmead Hospital Bristol, Bristol, UK.
BMJ Open ; 10(5): e034569, 2020 05 15.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32414822
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the response process validity, feasibility of completion, acceptability and preferences for three patient-reported outcome measures that could be used in economic evaluation-the EQ-5D-5L, ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O-in people requiring kidney care.

DESIGN:

Participants were asked to 'think-aloud' while completing the EQ-5D-5L, ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O, followed by a semistructured interview. Five raters identified errors or struggles in completing the measures from the think-aloud component of the transcripts. Patient preferences for measures were extracted from the semistructured interview.

SETTING:

Eligible patients were identified through a large UK secondary care renal centre.

PARTICIPANTS:

In total, 30 participants were included in the study, consisting of patients attending renal outpatients for chronic kidney disease (n=18), with a functioning kidney transplant (n=6) and receiving haemodialysis (n=6).

RESULTS:

Participants had few errors and struggles in completing the EQ-5D-5L (11% error rate, 3% struggle rate), ICECAP-A (2% error rate, 2% struggle rate) and ICECAP-O (4% error rate, 3% struggle rate). The main errors with the EQ-5D-5L were judgements that did not comply with the 'your health today' instruction. Comprehension errors were most prominent on ICECAP-O. Judgement errors were the only errors reported on ICECAP-A. Although the EQ-5D-5L had slightly more errors and struggles, it was the measure most preferred, with participants able to make a clearer link with EQ-5D-5L and their health condition.

CONCLUSIONS:

The EQ-5D-5L, ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O are feasible for people requiring kidney care to complete and can be included in studies conducting economic evaluations of kidney care interventions. Further research is required to assess how health (eg, EQ-5D) and capability (eg, ICECAP) measures can be included in an economic evaluation simultaneously, as well as what ICECAP measure(s) to include when patient groups straddle the age ranges for ICECAP-A (18 years and older) and ICECAP-O (65 years and older).
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Calidad de Vida / Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente / Enfermedades Renales Límite: Adolescent / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Open Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Calidad de Vida / Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente / Enfermedades Renales Límite: Adolescent / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Open Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido