Literature DB >> 15058785

Content-based interpretation aids for health-related quality of life measures in clinical practice. An example for the visual function index (VF-14).

J M Valderas1, J Alonso, L Prieto, M Espallargues, X Castells.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In spite of a well-established development of instruments, difficulty in interpreting health related quality of life scores may limit its use in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To develop generalizable interpretation aids for a measure of perceived functional visual status, the VF-14 index.
DESIGN: Item Response Theory (Rasch analysis) was used to analyze the performance of VF-14 items. The 'ruler' aid was derived from the most difficult activity (item) a patient is able to do without difficulty; the 'clinical scenarios' aid, first identified all significantly different clusters of items within the index and then estimated the mean expected difficulty (responses) to perform a benchmark item in each cluster.
SETTING: The study was conducted in four hospitals and six ambulatory cataract surgery centers in Barcelona, Spain. PATIENTS: One hundred and ninety-eight patients scheduled for first eye cataracts surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The self-reported VF-14 index and clinical measures were used.
RESULTS: All VF-14 items were found unidimensional with three items showing only partial misfit. For a patient with a VF-14 Rasch score of 71, the 'ruler' aid indicated that 'doing fine handwork' would be the most requiring activity he/she would perform without difficulty. The 'clinical scenarios' aid estimated that such a patient would be unable to 'drive at night', would have some difficulty 'reading small print' and no difficulty 'doing fine handwork', 'watching TV' or 'recognizing people'. Concordance between modeled and observed responses was fair to substantial.
CONCLUSIONS: Simple content-based interpretation aids for the VF-14 scores were developed that should facilitate its use in clinical practice. These aids should be easily generalizable to other quality of life instruments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15058785     DOI: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000015298.09085.b0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  29 in total

1.  Using IRT variable maps to enrich understanding of rehabilitation data.

Authors:  W Coster; L Ludlow; M Mancini
Journal:  J Outcome Meas       Date:  1999

2.  Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century.

Authors:  R D Hays; L S Morales; S P Reise
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Outcomes research: measuring the end results of health care.

Authors:  C M Clancy; J M Eisenberg
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-10-09       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation.

Authors:  R A Deyo; P Diehr; D L Patrick
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1991-08

Review 5.  The significance of treatment effects: the clinical perspective.

Authors:  R A Deyo; D L Patrick
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  E F Juniper; G H Guyatt; A Willan; L E Griffith
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  International applicability of the VF-14. An index of visual function in patients with cataracts.

Authors:  J Alonso; M Espallargues; T F Andersen; S D Cassard; E Dunn; P Bernth-Petersen; J C Norregaard; C Black; E P Steinberg; G F Anderson
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract.

Authors:  E P Steinberg; J M Tielsch; O D Schein; J C Javitt; P Sharkey; S D Cassard; M W Legro; M Diener-West; E B Bass; A M Damiano
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1994-05

9.  Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

Authors:  A L Stewart; S Greenfield; R D Hays; K Wells; W H Rogers; S D Berry; E A McGlynn; J E Ware
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1989-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Effectiveness of cataract surgery in Barcelona, Spain site results of an international study. Barcelona I-PORT investigators. International Patient Outcomes Research Team.

Authors:  M Espallargues; J Alonso
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  8 in total

1.  The impact of the VF-14 index, a perceived visual function measure, in the routine management of cataract patients.

Authors:  J M Valderas; M Rue; G Guyatt; J Alonso
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: a summary for clinicians.

Authors:  Jeff A Sloan; Marlene H Frost; Rick Berzon; Amylou Dueck; Gordon Guyatt; Carol Moinpour; Mirjam Sprangers; Carol Ferrans; David Cella
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2006-06-23       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Influence of photodynamic therapy for age related macular degeneration upon subjective vision related quality of life.

Authors:  Alex W Hewitt; V Swetha Jeganathan; Juanita E Kidd; Konrad Pesudovs; Nitin Verma
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-01-13       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Characteristics of patients with giant cell arteritis who experience visual symptoms.

Authors:  Chung Shen Chean; James A Prior; Toby Helliwell; John Belcher; Sarah L Mackie; Samantha L Hider; Jennifer Liddle; Christian D Mallen
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 2.631

Review 5.  The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  J M Valderas; A Kotzeva; M Espallargues; G Guyatt; C E Ferrans; M Y Halyard; D A Revicki; T Symonds; A Parada; J Alonso
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-01-04       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure.

Authors:  Jan L Brozek; Gordon H Guyatt; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 3.186

7.  Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician's perspective.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; Elie A Akl; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-09-14       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Patient-reported outcomes: pathways to better health, better services, and better societies.

Authors:  N Black; L Burke; C B Forrest; U H Ravens Sieberer; S Ahmed; J M Valderas; S J Bartlett; J Alonso
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 4.147

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.