Further psychometric evaluation of the WOUND-Q: A responsiveness study.

The WOUND-Q is a modular patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with 13 scales measuring constructs across 4 domains (i.e., wound characteristics, health related quality of life, experience of care and wound treatment). The psychometrics of the WOUND-Q were previously assessed and the 13 scales evidenced good validity and reliability. However, the responsiveness (i.e., ability to detect clinical change) of the WOUND-Q has yet to be assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate responsiveness for 9 WOUND-Q scales that assess outcomes, in a sample of people 18 years of age or older with chronic wounds that were present for at least 3 months. This study conducted a 4 month follow-up of 421 participants who completed the WOUND-Q as part of a previous psychometric study. Participants completed an online survey answering questions about their current wound state (e.g., number, type, size, smell, drainage), anchor questions about change, as well as the WOUND-Q scales that they had completed in their initial assessment. Pre-defined hypotheses were tested with a 75% acceptance threshold indicating sufficient evidence of responsiveness. Minimally important differences (MIDs) were also calculated using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Of 390 invited participants, 320 provided responses, ranging in age from 19 to 84 years. Acceptance of hypotheses ranged from 60% to 100%, with only the Symptom scale not meeting the 75% threshold. The findings of this study provide evidence that the WOUND-Q can validly measure clinical change in patients with chronic wounds.

The SKIN-Q: An Innovative Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Evaluating Minimally Invasive Skin Treatments for the Face and Body.

Background: As the aesthetics field continues to innovate, it is important that outcomes are carefully evaluated. Objectives: To develop item libraries to measure how skin looks and feels from the patient perspective, that is, SKIN-Q. Methods: Concept elicitation interviews were conducted and data were used to draft the SKIN-Q, which was refined with patient and expert feedback. An online sample (i.e., Prolific) provided field-test data. Results: We conducted 26 qualitative interviews (88% women; 65% ≥ 40 years of age). A draft of the SKIN-Q item libraries were formed and revised with input from 12 experts, 11 patients, and 174 online participants who provided 180 survey responses. The psychometric sample of 657 participants (82% women; 36% aged ≥40 years) provided 713 completed surveys (facial, n = 595; body, n = 118). After removing 14 items, the psychometric analysis provided evidence of reliability (≥0.85) and validity for a 20-item set that measures how skin feels and a 46-item set that measures how skin looks. Short-form scales were tested to provide examples for how to utilize the item sets. Conclusion: The SKIN-Q represents an innovative way to measure satisfaction with skin (face and body) in the context of minimally invasive treatments.

BODY-Q Normative Scores: Psychometric Validation of the BODY-Q in the General Population in Europe and North America.

Background: BODY-Q is a rigorously developed patient-reported outcome measure designed to measure outcomes of weight loss and body contouring patients. To allow interpretation and comparison of BODY-Q scores across studies, normative BODY-Q values were generated from the general population. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of BODY-Q in the normative population. Methods: Data were collected using two crowdsourcing platforms (Prolific and Amazon Mechanical Turk) in 12 European and North American countries. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) was used to examine reliability and validity of BODY-Q scales. Results: RMT analysis supported the psychometric properties of BODY-Q in the normative sample with ordered thresholds in all items and nonsignificant chi-square values for 167 of 176 items. Reliability was high with person separation index of greater than or equal to 0.70 in 20 of 22 scales and Cronbach alpha values of greater than or equal to 0.90 in 17 of 22 scales. Mean scale scores measuring appearance, health-related quality of life, and eating-related concerns scales varied as predicted across subgroups with higher scores reported by participants who were more satisfied with their weight. Analysis to explore differential item functioning by sample (normative versus field-test) flagged some potential issues, but subsequent comparison of adjusted and unadjusted person estimates provided evidence that the scoring algorithm worked equivalently for the normative sample as in the field-test samples. Conclusions: The BODY-Q scales showed acceptable reliability and validity in the normative sample. The normative values can be used as reference in research and clinical practice in combination with local estimates for parallel analysis and comparison.

Best Practices for FACE-Q Aesthetics Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology.

BACKGROUND: The FACE-Q Aesthetics module is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that evaluates perspectives on facial aesthetic treatments. Improper administration and poor study methodology can compromise the validity and interpretation of this PROM. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review sought to evaluate the administration and scoring of the FACE-Q Aesthetics scales within the literature. METHODS: A search of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed on December 20, 2022, with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42022383676). Studies that examined facial aesthetic interventions using the FACE-Q Aesthetics module as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included for analysis. RESULTS: There were 114 studies included. The Face Overall (n = 52, 45.6%), Psychological (n = 45, 39.4%), and Social (n = 43, 37.7%) scales were most frequently reported. Errors in FACE-Q administration were identified in 30 (26.3%) studies. The most common error was the presentation of raw ordinal scores rather than the converted Q score (n = 23). Most studies reported a time horizon for their primary analysis (n = 76, 66.7%); however, only 4 studies provided a rationale for this selection. Sample size calculations for the primary outcome were rarely performed (n = 9, 7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be limitations in PROM administration and the quality of articles that report FACE-Q Aesthetic scale data. The authors suggest that future investigators using the FACE-Q refer to the User's Guide regarding administration and scoring of this scale, report a rationale for the study time horizon, and provide an a priori sample size calculation for the primary outcome of interest.

Re-examining content validity of the BREAST-Q more than a decade later to determine relevance and comprehensiveness.

PURPOSE: The BREAST-Q is the most used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in breast cancer surgery. The purposes of this study were to re-examine the content validity of BREAST-Q cancer modules (mastectomy, lumpectomy and reconstruction) and to determine the need for new scales. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with women with breast cancer (Stage 0-4, any treatment), and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive (based on original BREAST-Q conceptual framework) and inductive (new codes from the data) content analysis approaches were used to analyze the data. The number of codes that mapped to BREAST-Q were recorded. RESULTS: Dataset included 3948 codes from 58 participants. Most of the breast (n = 659, 96%) and all psychosocial (n = 127, 100%), sexual (n = 179, 100%) and radiation-related (n = 79, 100%) codes mapped to BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breast, Psychosocial Wellbeing, Sexual Wellbeing and Adverse Effects of Radiation scales, respectively. For the physical wellbeing codes (n = 939) for breast/chest and arm, 34% (n = 321) mapped to the Physical Wellbeing-Chest scale. Most of the abdomen codes (n = 311) mapped to Satisfaction with Abdomen (n = 90, 76%) and Physical Wellbeing-Abdomen (n = 171, 89%) scales. Codes that did not map (n = 697, 30%) covered breast sensation and lymphedema. Concerns related to fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were most reported and did not map to BREAST-Q. CONCLUSION: The BREAST-Q, which was developed using extensive patient input more than a decade ago, is still relevant. To ensure the BREAST-Q remains comprehensive, new scales for upper extremity lymphedema, breast sensation, fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were developed.

Body Contouring Surgery Improves Long-Term Satisfaction with Appearance and Health-Related Quality of Life after Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are crucial in bariatric surgery (BaS) and body contouring surgery (BC) because patients' goals include improvement in appearance and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). The BODY-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure developed to measure change in satisfaction with appearance and HR-QOL in BaS and BC patients. The aim of this study was to examine BODY-Q scores over the entire weight loss journey, and to investigate the impact of BC after BaS. METHODS: Patients completed the BODY-Q before and after BaS and BC at four hospital departments in Denmark between 2015 and 2019. Cross-sectional scores were analyzed by phase of weight loss journey using one-way analysis of variance. Scores for patients who provided longitudinal assessments were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance and paired t test. The impact of BC was examined over time after BaS, using an independent t test from before BaS through more than 7 years after BaS. RESULTS: The study included 1527 patients who provided 2285 BODY-Q assessments. The cross-sectional analysis by phase of weight loss journey showed higher scores after BaS, lower scores before BC, and highest-level scores after BC. The longitudinal analysis showed higher postoperative mean scores compared with preoperative scores for both BaS and BC. The analysis over time after BaS revealed lower mean scores in patients who did not receive BC. CONCLUSION: The authors' results provide evidence of the positive impact of BaS and BC on patients' lives and emphasize the importance of considering BC to finalize the weight loss journey, as it helps to maintain improvements in appearance and HR-QOL. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Qualitative study informing the development and content validity of the HAND-Q: a modular patient-reported outcome measure for hand conditions.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify and understand the issues that are relevant to patients with hand conditions. The data were used to develop a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for adults with hand conditions (HAND-Q) and refine it with input from patients and clinician experts. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interviews were used to understand what matters to patients. Cognitive debriefing was used to refine preliminary HAND-Q scales. SETTING: Hand clinics in tertiary healthcare centres in Canada, Australia and USA. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were English-speaking adults who had experienced hand surgery in the preceding 12 months and were at least 4 weeks post-hand surgery A total of 62 in-depth interviews (females, n=34; mean age=65 years) were conducted to develop an item pool and draft the HAND-Q scales. The preliminary scales were refined through cognitive debriefing interviews with 20 participants and feedback from 25 clinician experts. All interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using a line-by-line approach. RESULTS: Qualitative data were organised into two top-level domains of health-related quality of life and satisfaction with treatment outcomes. The scales were refined iteratively, and the field-test version included 319 unique items and 20 independently functioning scales. CONCLUSIONS: The HAND-Q is a comprehensive PROM developed using extensive patient and clinician expert input, following established guidelines for PROM development and validation. In the next phase, the psychometric properties of the HAND-Q will be established in an international field test, following which the HAND-Q will be available for use in clinical research and practice .

The HAND-Q: Psychometrics of a New Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Clinical and Research Applications.

The perspective of the patient in measuring the outcome of their hand treatment is of key importance. We developed a hand-specific patient-reported outcome measure to provide a means to measure outcomes and experiences of care from the patient perspective, that is, HAND-Q. METHODS: Data were collected from people with a broad range of hand conditions in hand clinics in six countries between April 2018 and January 2021. Rasch measurement theory analysis was used to perform item reduction and to examine reliability and validity of each HAND-Q scale. RESULTS: A sample of 1277 patients was recruited. Participants ranged in age from 16 to 89 years, 54% were women, and a broad range of congenital and acquired hand conditions were represented. Rasch measurement theory analysis led to the refinement of 14 independently functioning scales that measure hand appearance, health-related quality of life, experience of care, and treatment outcome. Each scale evidenced reliability and validity. Examination of differential item functioning by age, gender, language, and type of hand condition (ie, nontraumatic versus traumatic) confirmed that a common scoring algorithm for each scale could be implemented. CONCLUSIONS: The HAND-Q was developed following robust psychometric methods to provide a comprehensive modular independently functioning set of scales. HAND-Q scales can be used to assess and compare evidence-based outcomes in patients with any type of hand condition.

Psychometric Validation of the FACE-Q Craniofacial Module for Facial Nerve Paralysis.

Background: Systematic reviews have identified the need for a patient-reported outcome measure for facial nerve paralysis (FNP). The aim of this study was to determine the psychometric properties of FACE-Q Craniofacial module scales when used in a combined sample of children and older adults with FNP. Methods: Data were collected between December 2016 and December 2019. We conducted qualitative interviews with children and adults with FNP. FACE-Q data were collected from patients aged 8 years and older with FNP. Rasch measurement theory analysis was used to examine the reliability and validity of the relevant scales in the FNP sample. Results: Twenty-five patients provided 2052 qualitative codes related to appearance, physical, psychological, and social function. Many patient concerns were common across age. The field-test sample included 235 patients aged 8-81 years. Of the 13 scales examined, all 122 items had ordered thresholds and good item fit to the Rasch model. For 12 scales, person separation index values were ≥0.79 and Cronbach's alpha values were ≥0.82. The 13th scale's reliability values were ≥0.71. Conclusion: The FACE-Q Craniofacial module scales described in this study can be used to collect and compare evidence-based outcome data from children and adults with FNP.

Development and Psychometric Validation of BREAST-Q Scales Measuring Cancer Worry, Fatigue, and Impact on Work.

BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure for women with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to develop new BREAST-Q scales to measure Cancer Worry, Fatigue and Impact on Work. METHODS: Data were collected between January 2017 and November 2019. Phase 1 (qualitative) included participants from Canada and the USA, pre/post any type of breast cancer treatment (surgery, adjuvant, neoadjuvant). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded line-by-line. New scales were drafted and refined through cognitive interviews and expert input. Phase 2 (field-test study) involved USA members of the Love Research Army (LRA). Rasch measurement theory analysis was used to examine reliability and validity. RESULTS: In phase 1, 57 women were interviewed. Three concepts were identified as important to the breast cancer experience that are not currently covered in the BREAST-Q and developed into scales, i.e., Cancer Worry, Fatigue and Impact on Work. Feedback from nine women and 23 experts was used to establish content validity. The scales were field-tested in the LRA sample (n = 1680), of whom 1006 completed a test-retest. Reliability was > 0.81 for the person separation index, > 0.89 for Cronbach's alpha and > 0.83 for interclass correlation coefficients. Lower scores on all three scales were significantly associated with being closer in time to diagnosis and having a higher cancer stage at diagnosis (p < 0.001 on ANOVA). CONCLUSION: These new scales expand the BREAST-Q measurement system and provide a means to evaluate additional important outcomes for breast cancer patients in clinical care and research.

Rasch Analysis of Patient- and Parent-Reported Outcome Measures in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard Set for Cleft Lip and Palate.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric performance of the patient- and parent-reported measures in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Standard Set for Cleft Care, and to identify ways of improving concept coverage. METHODS: Data from 714 patients with cleft lip and/or palate, aged 8 to 9, 10 to 12.5, and 22 years were collected between November 2015 and April 2019 at Erasmus University Medical Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Duke Children's Hospital, and from participating sites in the CLEFT-Q Phase 3 study. The Standard Set includes 9 CLEFT-Q scales, the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire, the Child Oral Health Impact Profile-Oral Symptoms Scale (COHIP-OSS), and the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS). Targeting, item-fit statistics, thresholds for item responses, and measurement precision (PSI) were analyzed using Rasch measurement theory. RESULTS: The proportion of the sample to score within each instruments range of measurement varied from 69% (ICS) to 92% (CLEFT-Q teeth and COHIP-OSS). Specific problems with individual items within the NOSE and COHIP-OSS questionnaires were noted, such as poor item fit to the Rasch model and disordered thresholds (6 of 10). Reliability measured with PSI was above 0.82 for the ICS and all but one CLEFT-Q scale (speech distress). PSIs were lowest for the COHIP-OSS (0.43) and NOSE questionnaire (0.35). CONCLUSION: The patient- and parent-reported components within the facial appearance, psychosocial function, and speech domains are valid measures; however, the facial function and oral health domains are not sufficiently covered by the CLEFT-Q eating and drinking, NOSE, and COHIP-OSS, and these questionnaires may not be accurate enough to stratify cleft-related outcomes.

An international mixed methods study to develop a new preference-based measure for women with breast cancer: the BREAST-Q Utility module.

BACKGROUND: Generic preference-based measures (PBM), though commonly used, may not be optimal for use in economic evaluations of breast cancer interventions. No breast cancer-specific PBM currently exists, and the generic PBMs fail to capture the unique concerns of women with breast cancer (e.g., body image, appearance, treatment-specific adverse effects). Hence, the objective of this study was to develop a breast cancer-specific PBM, the BREAST-Q Utility module. METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer (stage 0-4, any treatment) were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in Canada and one in the US. The study followed an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach, whereby semi-structured interviews were conducted and at the end of the interview, participants were asked to list their top five health-related quality of life (HRQOL) concerns and to rate the importance of each item on the BREAST-Q. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. Constant comparison was used to refine the codes and develop a conceptual framework. Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated to develop the content of the Utility module  that was refined through 2 rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and feedback from experts. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 57 women aged 55 ± 10 years. A conceptual framework was developed from 3948 unique codes specific to breasts, arms, abdomen, and cancer experience. Five top-level domains were HRQOL (i.e., physical, psychological, social, and sexual well-being) and appearance. Data from the interviews, top 5 HRQOL concerns, and BREAST-Q item ratings were used to inform dimensions for inclusion in the Utility module. Feedback from women with breast cancer (N = 9) and a multidisciplinary group of experts (N = 27) was used to refine the module. The field-test version of the HSCS consists of 10 unique dimensions. Each dimension is measured with 1 or 2 candidate items that have 4-5 response levels each. CONCLUSION: The field-test version of the BREAST-Q Utility module was derived from extensive patient and expert input. This comprehensive approach ensured that the content of the Utility module is relevant, comprehensive, and includes concerns that matter the most to women with breast cancer.

Development and Validation of the BREAST-Q Breast-Conserving Therapy Module.

BACKGROUND: In breast cancer surgery, patient-reported outcome measures are needed to measure outcomes best reported by patients (e.g., psychosocial well-being). This study aimed to develop and validate a new BREAST-Q module to address the unique concerns of patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy (BCT). METHODS: Phase 1 involved qualitative and cognitive interviews with women who had BCT and clinical expert input to establish content for the BCT module. A field-test (phase 2) was performed, and Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used for item reduction and examination of reliability and validity. Validation of the item-reduced scales in a clinical sample (phase 3) was conducted for further assessment of their psychometric properties. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews with 24 women resulted in the addition of 15 new items across multiple existing BREAST-Q scales and the development of two new scales (Adverse Effects of Radiation and Satisfaction With Information-Radiation Therapy). Feedback from 15 patients and 5 clinical experts were used to refine the instructions, response options, and item wording. An RMT analysis of data from 3497 women resulted in item reduction. The final set of scales showed evidence of ordered response option thresholds, good item fit, and good reliability, except for the Adverse Effects of the Radiation Scale. Validity and reliability were further supported by the phase 3 data from 3125 women. CONCLUSIONS: The BREAST-Q BCT module can be used in research and clinical care to evaluate quality metrics and to compare surgical outcomes across all breast cancer surgery patients.

International phase 1 study protocol to develop a health state classification system for a preference-based measure for women with breast cancer: the BREAST-Q Utility module.

INTRODUCTION: Concerns unique to women with breast cancer can include impact of cancer on body image, sexual well-being and changes in breast appearance and sensation. These important issues are not captured by the existing generic preference-based measures (PBMs) and no breast cancer-specific PBM currently exists. This Phase 1 protocol describes a mixed-methods study to develop and validate the descriptive health state classification system for a breast cancer-specific PBM, called the BREAST-Q Utility module. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A heterogeneous sample of women aged 18 years and older diagnosed with breast cancer who are undergoing or have had treatment for breast cancer will be invited to participate in qualitative interviews. Participants will be asked to describe impact of their diagnosis and treatment(s) on their health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Interviews will be audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using a line-by-line approach. At the end of each interview, based on each participant's cancer treatment history, patients will complete the mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy or reconstruction module of BREAST-Q, with modified 5-point Likert scale to measure importance of the BREAST-Q concepts. Both sources of data will be analysed to identify the most important HRQOL concerns.A conceptual framework and item pool will be developed from the qualitative dataset. Preliminary version of the BREAST-Q Utility module will be created and refined at an in-person meeting of multidisciplinary experts. Content validity of the Utility module will be examined (cognitive debriefing, expert feedback). Psychometric properties of Utility module will be evaluated in a large sample of women with breast cancer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. Results of this study will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Giving Meaning to Differences in BREAST-Q Scores: Minimal Important Difference for Breast Reconstruction Patients.

BACKGROUND: The reconstruction module of the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure is frequently used by investigators and in clinical practice. A minimal important difference establishes the smallest change in outcome measure score that patients perceive to be important. To enhance interpretability of the BREAST-Q reconstruction module, the authors determined minimal important difference estimates using distribution-based methods. METHODS: An analysis of prospectively collected data from 3052 Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium patients was performed. The authors used distribution-based methods to investigate the minimal important difference for the entire patient sample and three clinically relevant groups. The authors used both 0.2 SD units (effect size) and the standardized response mean value of 0.2 as distribution-based criteria. Clinical experience was used to guide and assess appropriateness of results. RESULTS: A total of 3052 patients had BREAST-Q data available for analysis. The average age and body mass index were 49.5 and 26.8, respectively. The minimal important difference estimates for each domain were 4 (Satisfaction with Breasts), 4 (Psychosocial Well-being), 3 (Physical Well-being), and 4 (Sexual Well-being). The minimal important difference estimates for each domain were similar when compared within the three clinically relevant groups. CONCLUSIONS: The authors propose that a minimal important difference score of 4 points on the transformed 0 to 100 scale is clinically useful when assessing an individual patient's outcome using the reconstruction module of the BREAST-Q. When designing research studies, investigators should use the minimal important difference estimate for their domain of interest when calculating sample size. The authors acknowledge that distribution-based minimal important differences are estimates and may vary based on patient population and context.

Psychometric validation of anti-clot treatment scale and treatment satisfaction questionnaire for medication version II in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation.

Aims: The Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II (TSQM-II) are validated treatment satisfaction patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. The ACTS includes two domains: Burdens and Benefits; the TSQM-II includes four: Effectiveness, Side Effects, Convenience, and Global Satisfaction. Japanese-language versions of the ACTS and TSQM-II have been developed and linguistically validated. This study aimed to assess their psychometric properties in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Materials and methods: ACTS and TSQM-II data from 534 patients with AF were collected in a Japanese post-marketing surveillance study of a direct oral-anticoagulant, rivaroxaban. Four key psychometric properties, in line with best practice guidelines from the US Food and Drug Administration, were examined using traditional psychometric methods: acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability (i.e. internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability), and construct validity (i.e. convergent validity and known groups). Results: ACTS Burdens and Benefits and TSQM-II Effectiveness, Convenience, and Global Satisfaction scales were found to be acceptable (e.g. item-level missing data at baseline <4%), with all scales having good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.80). test-retest reproducibility intraclass correlation coefficients for the ACTS Burdens and Benefits were 0.59 and 0.65, respectively, and between 0.54-0.61 for the TSQM-II scales. Known-groups validity for the ACTS and TSQM-II was supported by differences in scale scores by positive and negative impact (p < 0.05). Correlations between the ACTS and TSQM-II (convergent validity) were lower than expected (range r = 0.09-0.48), but in line with the original ACTS development study. Limitations: Evaluation of test-retest reproducibility was limited by assessment period, which was longer (3 months) than recommended guidelines (usually up to 2 weeks). Conclusions: Overall, Japanese versions of ACTS and TSQM-II scales satisfied internal consistency reliability and traditional validity criteria. Our study supports the ACTS and TSQM-II as appropriate PRO instruments to measure satisfaction with anticoagulant treatment in Japanese patients with AF. Trial registration: NCT01598051, clinicaltrials.gov; registered April 20, 2012.

A Rasch Measurement Theory Approach to Improve the Interpretation of Patient-reported Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Interpretability is a key challenge for researchers, clinicians, and patients interested in using the output of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. When rich and detailed meaning is required to assist individual patients to make treatment choices we propose that the item content of psychometric rating scales should be better leveraged to improve interpretability. METHODS: Modern psychometric methods such as Rasch measurement theory allow PRO users to map patient progress up or down a scale over time to item benchmarks. These benchmarks represent the relative difficulty associated with each item contained in a scale. The most difficult items benchmark the best overall outcome on a scale and the least difficult items represent the worst overall outcome. The group-level effects of different treatment options can also be mapped to item benchmarks and compared with those of individual patients. DISCUSSION: The proposed method leverages the content already available in PRO instruments to improve interpretation. This approach locates both individuals (in this instance breast cancer patients undergoing surgery) and treatments (in this instance breast reconstruction techniques), on a hierarchy of health variables where each variable represents a progressively more advanced step in the recovery process. The approach can specify the aspects of a health concept where patients are currently competent, and the aspects which they might gain from a new treatment. It can also assist attempts by industry to communicate specific treatment benefits to their target audience. KEY POINTS: The method is best applied when patients need guidance about the likely benefits of different treatment options, when a PRO instrument has been developed using a modern psychometric method such as Rasch measurement theory, when there is good evidence from well-conducted studies of the group-level benefits of different treatment options, and these benefits have been measured using appropriate PROs. The method depends on good "fit" of individual patient responses to an underlying model. However, even when fit is poor it may be useful for patients to understand the "ladder" of health achievements for their condition (from the perspective of the average patient) and where different treatment options sit on this ladder.

International multiphase mixed methods study protocol to develop a cross-cultural patient-reported outcome and experience measure for hand conditions (HAND-Q).

INTRODUCTION: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are instruments used to measure outcomes and experiences of healthcare from the patient perspective. The specific methodology used to develop a PROM should be communicated to establish the quality of the instrument. This mixed methods protocol describes the development of a cross-cultural, internationally applicable PROM for hand conditions, the HAND-Q. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The multiphase approach used for this study has been previously used with the development of other PROMs by our team (eg, BODY-Q, BREAST-Q, CLEFT-Q, FACE-Q). In Phase I, we establish what important concepts matter to patients with hand conditions. A conceptual framework is developed from a systematic review of existing PROMs in the field and an extensive international qualitative study. Interpretive description is the qualitative approach used. Item generation is based on the qualitative data. The preliminary scales will be created for each theme identified in the conceptual framework. These scales will be refined by cognitive debriefing interviews with participants and expert input. Phase II involves a large international sample of patients with varied hand conditions completing the field-test version of the HAND-Q. The scales will be refined using the modern psychometric approach of Rasch Measurement Theory. Analysis will result in a shortened set of clinically meaningful and scientifically robust HAND-Q scales. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is coordinated at Flinders University (Adelaide, Australia) where it has ethics board approval for phase I and phase II. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national and international conferences.