Yount, Susan

Abstract Aims Heart failure (HF) is a common and morbid condition impacting multiple health domains. We previously reported the development of the PROMIS®-Plus-HF (PROMIS+HF) profile measure, including universal and HF-specific items. To facilitate use, we developed shorter, PROMIS+HF profiles intended for research and clinical use. Methods and results Candidate items were selected based on psychometric properties and symptom range coverage. HF clinicians (n = 43) rated item importance and clinical actionability. Based on these results, we developed the PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles with summary scores (0–100) for overall, physical, mental, and social health. In a cross-sectional sample (n = 600), we measured internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha and Spearman–Brown), test–retest reliability (intraclass coefficient; n = 100), known-groups validity via New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and convergent validity with Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. In a longitudinal sample (n = 75), we evaluated responsiveness of baseline/follow-up scores by calculating mean differences and Cohen's d and comparing with paired t-tests. Internal consistency was good to excellent (α 0.82–0.94) for all PROMIS+HF-27 scores and acceptable to good (α/Spearman–Brown 0.60–0.85) for PROMIS+HF-10 scores. Test–retest intraclass coefficients were acceptable to excellent (0.75–0.97). Both profiles demonstrated known-groups validity for the overall and physical health summary scores based on NYHA class, and convergent validity for nearly all scores compared with KCCQ scores. In the longitudinal sample, we demonstrated responsiveness for PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 overall and physical summary scores. For the PROMIS+HF overall summary scores, a group-based increase of 7.6–8.3 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.40–0.42). For the PROMIS+HF physical summary scores, a group-based increase of 5.0–5.9 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.29–0.35). Conclusions The PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles demonstrated good psychometric characteristics with evidence of responsiveness for overall and physical health. These new measures can facilitate patient-centred research and clinical care, such as improving care quality through symptom monitoring, facilitating shared decision-making, evaluating quality of care, assessing new interventions, and monitoring during the initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy.

Background In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. Methods This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran–Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. Results A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach’s alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. Conclusion The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.