S J Bartlett1,2, A K Gutierrez3,4, A Butanis3, V P Bykerk5, J R Curtis6, S Ginsberg7, A L Leong8, A Lyddiatt9, W B Nowell7, A M Orbai3, K C Smith10, C O Bingham3. 1. Center for Health Outcomes Research, McGill University, 5252 de Maisonneuve West, #3D-57, Montreal, QC, H4A 3S5, Canada. Susan.bartlett@mcgill.ca. 2. Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Mason F Lord Tower, 5200 Eastern Avenue, Rm 404, Baltimore, MD, 21224, USA. Susan.bartlett@mcgill.ca. 3. Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Mason F Lord Tower, 5200 Eastern Avenue, Rm 404, Baltimore, MD, 21224, USA. 4. Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health, Pasig City, Philippines. 5. Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, 525 East 71st St, 7th floor, New York, NY, 10021, USA. 6. Division of Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 7. Global Healthy Living Foundation, Upper Nyack, NY, USA. 8. Healthy Motivation, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. 9. Patient Partners, London, ON, Canada. 10. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Qualitative Studies in Health and Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fatigue is frequent and often severe and disabling in RA, and there is no consensus on how to measure it. We used online surveys and in-person interviews to evaluate PROMIS Fatigue 7a and 8a short forms (SFs) in people with RA. METHODS: We recruited people with RA from an online patient community (n = 200) and three academic medical centers (n = 84) in the US. Participants completed both SFs then rated the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the items to their fatigue experience. Cognitive debriefing of items was conducted in a subset of 32 clinic patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and associations were evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Mean SF scores were similar (p ≥ .61) among clinic patients reflecting mild fatigue (i.e., 54.5-55.9), but were significantly higher (p < .001) in online participants. SF Fatigue scores correlated highly (r ≥ 0.82; p < .000) and moderately with patient assessments of disease activity (r ≥ 0.62; p = .000). Most (70-92%) reported that the items "completely" or "mostly" reflected their experience. Almost all (≥ 94%) could distinguish general fatigue from RA fatigue. Most (≥ 85%) rated individual items questions as "somewhat" or "very relevant" to their fatigue experience, averaged their fatigue over the past 7 days (58%), and rated fatigue impact versus severity (72 vs. 19%). 99% rated fatigue as an important symptom they considered when deciding how well their current treatment was controlling their RA. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that items in the single-score PROMIS Fatigue SFs demonstrate content validity and can adequately capture the wide range of fatigue experiences of people with RA.
PURPOSE:Fatigue is frequent and often severe and disabling in RA, and there is no consensus on how to measure it. We used online surveys and in-person interviews to evaluate PROMIS Fatigue 7a and 8a short forms (SFs) in people with RA. METHODS: We recruited people with RA from an online patient community (n = 200) and three academic medical centers (n = 84) in the US. Participants completed both SFs then rated the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the items to their fatigue experience. Cognitive debriefing of items was conducted in a subset of 32 clinic patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and associations were evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Mean SF scores were similar (p ≥ .61) among clinic patients reflecting mild fatigue (i.e., 54.5-55.9), but were significantly higher (p < .001) in online participants. SF Fatigue scores correlated highly (r ≥ 0.82; p < .000) and moderately with patient assessments of disease activity (r ≥ 0.62; p = .000). Most (70-92%) reported that the items "completely" or "mostly" reflected their experience. Almost all (≥ 94%) could distinguish general fatigue from RA fatigue. Most (≥ 85%) rated individual items questions as "somewhat" or "very relevant" to their fatigue experience, averaged their fatigue over the past 7 days (58%), and rated fatigue impact versus severity (72 vs. 19%). 99% rated fatigue as an important symptom they considered when deciding how well their current treatment was controlling their RA. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that items in the single-score PROMIS FatigueSFs demonstrate content validity and can adequately capture the wide range of fatigue experiences of people with RA.
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; Chad J Gwaltney; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mona L Martin; Elizabeth Molsen; Lena Ring Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Matthias Rose; Jakob B Bjorner; Barbara Gandek; Bonnie Bruce; James F Fries; John E Ware Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Rieke Alten; Christof Pohl; Ernest H Choy; Robin Christensen; Daniel E Furst; Sarah E Hewlett; Amye Leong; James E May; Tessa C Sanderson; Vibeke Strand; Thasia G Woodworth; Clifton O Bingham Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Gwenda Simons; John Belcher; Chris Morton; Kanta Kumar; Marie Falahee; Christian D Mallen; Rebecca J Stack; Karim Raza Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Tina Esfandiary; Jin Kyun Park; Helene Alexanderson; Malin Regardt; Merrilee Needham; Ingrid de Groot; Catherine Sarver; Ingrid E Lundberg; Marianne de Visser; Yeong Wook Song; Dana DiRenzo; Clifton O Bingham; Lisa Christopher-Stine; Christopher A Mecoli Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: David Cella; Hilary Wilson; Huda Shalhoub; Dennis A Revicki; Joseph C Cappelleri; Andrew G Bushmakin; Elizabeth Kudlacz; Ming-Ann Hsu Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2019-05-20
Authors: Susan J Bartlett; Clifton O Bingham; Ronald van Vollenhoven; Christopher Murray; David Gruben; David A Gold; David Cella Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 5.156