Ruth Barclay-Goddard1, Joshua D Epstein, Nancy E Mayo. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, School of Medical Rehabilitation, University of Manitoba, R106-771 McDermot Ave., Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T6, Canada. barclayg@cc.umanitoba.ca
Abstract
AIM: The objective of this overview is to review current methodologies of response shift research in patient-reported outcomes to facilitate and stimulate further research in this area. METHODS: This paper is a narrative overview of research in response shift. RESULTS: The following research priorities emerged: (1) obtain a consensus on terminology and theoretical models used, to ensure that all researchers and clinicians are at the same starting point; (2) determine the clinical importance of response shift; (3) determine the best way to measure and adjust for response shift as a clinically important confounder; (4) ascertain how response shift can best be identified when response shift is the focus of clinical treatment; and (5) establish what methods can be used to translate response shift knowledge into real-world settings. CONCLUSIONS: With the adoption of these research priorities, we anticipate that the theories and processes of response shift will be better understood, current methods to analyze this phenomenon will be improved while new ones may also be developed, and the clinical importance and impact of response shift in measuring changes in health-related quality of life (HRQL) will be determined.
AIM: The objective of this overview is to review current methodologies of response shift research in patient-reported outcomes to facilitate and stimulate further research in this area. METHODS: This paper is a narrative overview of research in response shift. RESULTS: The following research priorities emerged: (1) obtain a consensus on terminology and theoretical models used, to ensure that all researchers and clinicians are at the same starting point; (2) determine the clinical importance of response shift; (3) determine the best way to measure and adjust for response shift as a clinically important confounder; (4) ascertain how response shift can best be identified when response shift is the focus of clinical treatment; and (5) establish what methods can be used to translate response shift knowledge into real-world settings. CONCLUSIONS: With the adoption of these research priorities, we anticipate that the theories and processes of response shift will be better understood, current methods to analyze this phenomenon will be improved while new ones may also be developed, and the clinical importance and impact of response shift in measuring changes in health-related quality of life (HRQL) will be determined.
Authors: Carolyn E Schwartz; Rita Bode; Nicholas Repucci; Janine Becker; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Peter M Fayers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-09-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jonathan Rees; Michael G Clarke; Dympna Waldron; Ciaran O'Boyle; Paul Ewings; Ruaraidh P MacDonagh Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2005-03-30 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Muirne C S Paap; Christina Bode; Lonneke I M Lenferink; Caroline B Terwee; Job van der Palen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Deborah B Crom; Zhenghong Li; Tara M Brinkman; Melissa M Hudson; Gregory T Armstrong; Joseph Neglia; Kirsten K Ness Journal: J Pediatr Oncol Nurs Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 1.636
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Michael Söderman; Francis Turjman; Philip M White; Søren Jacob Bakke; Salvatore Mangiafico; Rüdiger von Kummer; Mario Muto; Christophe Cognard; Jan Gralla Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Thomas V Perneger; Angèle Gayet-Ageron; Delphine S Courvoisier; Thomas Agoritsas; Stéphane Cullati Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Pranav K Gandhi; L Douglas Ried; Carole L Kimberlin; Teresa L Kauf; I-Chan Huang Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.217