Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28357591›Full record

ArticleThe patient2017

Development and Pretesting of a Questionnaire to Assess Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM Questionnaire).

Merel L Kimman, Adrienne H Rotteveel, Marlies Wijsenbeek, Rémy Mostard, Nelleke C Tak, Xana van Jaarsveld, Marjolein Storm, Kioa L Wijnsma, Marielle Gelens, Nicole C A J van de Kar and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Patients' perceptions and patient-reported outcomes in progressive-fibrosing interstitial lung diseases.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2018
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Merel L KimmanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. merel.kimman@mumc.nl.
Adrienne H RotteveelDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marlies WijsenbeekDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, University Hospital Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rémy MostardDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Nelleke C TakDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, University Hospital Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Xana van JaarsveldLung Foundation Netherlands, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Marjolein StormKidney Patients Association, Bussum, The Netherlands.
Kioa L WijnsmaDepartment of Paediatric Nephrology, Radboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marielle GelensDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nicole C A J van de KarDepartment of Paediatric Nephrology, Radboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jack WetzelsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Carmen D DirksenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLErasmus MC · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLLung Foundation Netherlands · NLNierstichting · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

ZonMw 15200095001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to develop, together with the Lung Foundation Netherlands and Dutch Kidney Patients Association, patients and clinicians, a measure to evaluate patient experiences with the orphan drugs pirfenidone (for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [IPF]) and eculizumab (for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome [aHUS]), as well as a generic measure of patient experiences and satisfaction with medications.

methodsDevelopment of the Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) questionnaire consisted of four phases: literature review (phase I); focus groups and individual patient interviews (phase II); item generation (phase III); and face and content validity testing (phase IV). Literature review aimed to identify existing disease-specific and generic patient experience measures to provide guidance on the domains of medication use relevant to patients, the number of items and type of response categories, and to generate an initial pool of items. Subsequent focus groups and patient interviews were conducted to gain insight into the perceived effectiveness of the therapies, the burden of side effects, and how the medication impacted on a patient's daily life. Focus groups and interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Coding was carried out by highlighting passages in the text and assigning each passage a code representing the following predefined categories: (1) perceived effectiveness; (2) side effects; (3) ease of use; and (4) impact of medication. Using data from phase I and II, a panel of experts selected items relevant for inclusion in the questionnaire. Individual patient interviews with IPF and aHUS patients (n = 18), using a retrospective verbal probing technique, were conducted to assess face validity, time needed to fill out the questionnaire, and content validity.

resultsThe PESaM questionnaire that was developed consisted of two disease-specific modules that assessed patient experiences with pirfenidone for the treatment of IPF, and eculizumab for the treatment of aHUS, a generic module, applicable to any medication, and a module to assess patient expectations. Review of the literature identified multiple disease- or medication-specific questionnaires and two generic patient satisfaction questionnaires. Common domains across most questionnaires were effectiveness, side effects, ease of use and overall satisfaction. Patient interviews revealed the social impact (e.g. unable to go outside) of side effects such as photosensitivity associated with pirfenidone and the risk of infection associated with eculizumab. Each PESaM module focuses on patients' perceived effectiveness of the medication, side effects, and ease of use, and the impact these aspects have on physical and emotional health and daily life. The generic module additionally includes items related to satisfaction with the medication. Individual interviews with patients in phase IV confirmed, in general, that questions and response options of the modules were clear and content validity was good. The mean time to complete the modules ranged from 6 min for the disease-specific (aHUS) module to 9 min for the generic module.

conclusionsWe developed the PESaM questionnaire to quantitatively assess patient experiences and satisfaction with medications. A validation study is currently underway to examine the psychometric properties of the PESaM questionnaire.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionQuality of LifeAgedAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsAtypical Hemolytic Uremic SyndromeFemaleHumansIdiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOrphan Drug ProductionPatient PreferencePsychometricsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentseculizumabpirfenidonePyridonesEculizumabFocus GroupIdiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisOrphan DrugPatient Experience

Identifiers

PMID28357591
PMCPMC5605609
OpenAlexW2602549142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.