Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30681962›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

A Modular Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument for Electronic Assessment and Treatment Monitoring: Web-Based Development and Psychometric Validation of Core Thrive Items.

Paul Wicks, Stacey McCaffrey, Kim Goodwin, Ryan Black, Michael Hoole, James Heywood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Paul WicksPatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2293-9284
Stacey McCaffreyPatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0130-7218
Kim GoodwinPatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5564-5370
Ryan BlackPatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4303-2769
Michael HoolePatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1555-9814
James HeywoodPatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4630-5363

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures describe natural history, manage disease, and measure the effects of interventions in trials. Patients themselves increasingly use Web-based PRO tools to track their progress, share their data, and even self-experiment. However, existing PROs have limitations such as being: designed for paper (not screens), long and burdensome, negatively framed, under onerous licensing restrictions, either too generic or too specific.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate the core items of a modular, patient-centric, PRO system (Thrive) that could measure health status across a range of chronic conditions with minimal burden.

methodsThrive was developed in 4 phases, largely consistent with Food and Drug Administration guidance regarding PRO development. First, preliminary core items (common across multiple conditions: core Thrive items) were developed through literature review, analysis of approximately 20 existing PROs on PatientsLikeMe, and feedback from psychometric and content experts. Second, 2 rounds of cognitive interviews were iteratively conducted with patients (N=14) to obtain feedback on the preliminary items. Third, core Thrive items were administered electronically along with comparator measures, including 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF)-20 and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, to a large sample (N=2002) of adults with chronic diseases through the PatientsLikeMe platform. On the basis of theoretical and empirical rationale, items were revised or removed. Fourth, the revised core Thrive items were administered to another sample of patients (N=704) with generic and condition-specific comparator measures. A psychometric evaluation, which included both modern and classical test theory approaches, was conducted on these items, and several more items were removed.

resultsCognitive interviews helped to remove confusing or redundant items. Empirical testing of subscales revealed good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha=.712-.879), test-retest reliability (absolute intraclass correlations=.749-.912), and convergent validity with legacy PRO scales (eg, Pearson r=.5-.75 between Thrive subscales and PHQ-9 total). The finalized instrument consists of a 19-item core including 5 multi-item subscales: Core symptoms, Abilities, Mobility, Sleep, and Thriving. Results provide evidence of construct (content, convergent) validity, high levels of test-retest and internal consistency reliability, and the ability to detect change over time. The items did not exhibit bias based on gender or age, and the items generally functioned similarly across conditions. These results support the use of Thrive Core items across diverse chronic patient populations.

conclusionsThrive appears to be a useful approach for capturing important domains for patients with chronic conditions. This core set serves as a foundation to begin developing modular condition-specific versions in the near future. Cross-walking against traditional PROs from the PatientsLikeMe platform is underway, in addition to clinical validation and comparison with biomarkers. Thrive is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0.

Indexed as

Health StatusPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaireshealth-related quality of lifepatient reported outcome measurespersonal health records

Identifiers

PMID30681962
PMCPMC6367664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.