Literature DB >> 19257798

Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: challenges and potential solutions.

Donald E Stull1, Nancy Kline Leidy, Bhash Parasuraman, Olivier Chassany.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: As the role and importance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) increase, the validity and reliability of PRO measures come under greater scientific and regulatory scrutiny. One key issue is selecting the 'most appropriate' recall period for capturing PROs in clinical trials. This paper draws on survey research, health-specific literature, and results from clinical trials to summarize factors that can influence recall and provide guidance on selecting an optimal recall period.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of six databases and additional literature drawn from bibliographies of the selected articles.
RESULTS: Six major factors can influence recall; these can be classified into two broad areas: characteristics of the recalled phenomenon (recency, attributes, complexity) and context or meaning of the recalled phenomenon (salience, patient experience, mood). Results of different recall periods for three classes of PROs are presented: health behaviors, symptoms, and health-related quality of life. We present findings on the effect of alternative recall periods for three commonly used PROs. Finally, we propose a heuristic model to link the concept under investigation with an optimal recall period.
CONCLUSIONS: No single recall period is best for all measures or all phenomena. The recall period must correspond to the characteristics of the phenomenon of interest and the purpose of the assessment. Recall period is an issue of internal validity. An incorrect recall period introduces measurement error that may reduce the chances of detecting a treatment effect. Researchers should consider recall period as seriously as they do other measurement properties.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19257798     DOI: 10.1185/03007990902774765

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin        ISSN: 0300-7995            Impact factor:   2.580


  127 in total

1.  Electronic Patient Diaries and Questionnaires - ePRO Now Delivering on the Promise?

Authors:  Brian Tiplady
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ): development and preliminary psychometric evidence of an ICF-based questionnaire for vocational rehabilitation.

Authors:  Monika E Finger; Reuben Escorpizo; Cristina Bostan; Rob De Bie
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2014-09

3.  Development of the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE).

Authors:  Ethan Basch; Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Steven B Clauser; Lori M Minasian; Amylou C Dueck; Tito R Mendoza; Jennifer Hay; Thomas M Atkinson; Amy P Abernethy; Deborah W Bruner; Charles S Cleeland; Jeff A Sloan; Ram Chilukuri; Paul Baumgartner; Andrea Denicoff; Diane St Germain; Ann M O'Mara; Alice Chen; Joseph Kelaghan; Antonia V Bennett; Laura Sit; Lauren Rogak; Allison Barz; Diane B Paul; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Odors from sewage sludge and livestock: associations with self-reported health.

Authors:  Steve Wing; Amy Lowman; Alex Keil; Stephen W Marshall
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.792

5.  The effect of different sampling and recall periods in the CAHPS Clinician & Group (CG-CAHPS) survey.

Authors:  J Lee Hargraves; Carol Cosenza; Marc N Elliott; Paul D Cleary
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  The Path Forward for Digital Measures: Suppressing the Desire to Compare Apples and Pineapples.

Authors:  Carrie R Houts; Bray Patrick-Lake; Ieuan Clay; R J Wirth
Journal:  Digit Biomark       Date:  2020-11-26

7.  Introduction to the Special Section: Disorders of Sex Development.

Authors:  David E Sandberg; Vickie Pasterski; Nina Callens
Journal:  J Pediatr Psychol       Date:  2017-06-01

8.  Rasch analysis of the Student Refractive Error and Eyeglass Questionnaire.

Authors:  Mabel Crescioni; Dawn H Messer; Terri L Warholak; Joseph M Miller; J Daniel Twelker; Erin M Harvey
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.973

9.  Responsiveness of 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in a large, community-based cancer study cohort.

Authors:  Roxanne E Jensen; Carol M Moinpour; Arnold L Potosky; Tania Lobo; Elizabeth A Hahn; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Ashley Wilder Smith; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Theresa H M Keegan; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; David T Eton
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Using patient-reported outcome measures as quality indicators in routine cancer care.

Authors:  Angela M Stover; Ethan M Basch
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.