Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31446412›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Development of a 'universal-reporter' outcome measure (UROM) for patient and healthcare professional completion: a mixed methods study demonstrating a novel concept for optimal questionnaire design.

Rhiannon Macefield, Sara Brookes, Jane Blazeby, Kerry Avery, Bluebelle Study Group*

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Rhiannon MacefieldThe MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK R.Macefield@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6606-5427
Sara BrookesThe MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jane BlazebyThe MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3354-3330
Kerry AveryThe MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5477-2418
Bluebelle Study Group*

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/S001751/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the novel concept of, and methods for developing, a 'universal-reporter' outcome measure (UROM); a single questionnaire for completion by patients and/or healthcare professionals (HCPs) when views on the same subject are required.

designA mixed methods study with three phases-phase I: identification of relevant content domains from existing clinical tools, patient questionnaires and in-depth interviews with multistakeholders; phase II: item development using a novel approach that considered plain language in conjunction with medical terminology; and phase III: pretesting with multistakeholders using cognitive interviews.

settingA case study in surgical wound assessment undertaken in two UK hospital trusts and one university setting.

participantsPatients who had recently undergone general abdominal surgery and healthcare professionals involved in post-surgical wound care.

resultsPhase I: In the example case study, 19 relevant content domains were identified from two clinical tools, two patient questionnaires and 19 multistakeholder interviews (nine patients, 10 HCPs). Phase II: Domains were operationalised into items and subitems (secondary components to collect further information, if relevant). The version after pretesting had 16 items, five of which included further subitems. Plain language in conjunction with medical terminology was applicable in nine (27%) items/subitems. Phase III: Pretesting with 28 patients and 14 HCPs found that the UROM was acceptable to both respondent groups. An unanticipated secondary finding of the study was that the combined use of plain language and medical terminology during questionnaire development may be a useful, novel technique for evaluating item interpretation and thereby identifying items with inadequate content validity.

conclusionUROMs are a novel approach to outcome assessment that are acceptable to both patients and HCPs. Combining plain language and medical terminology during item development is a recommended technique to improve accuracy of item interpretation and content validity during questionnaire design. More work is needed to further validate this novel approach and explore the application of UROMs to other settings.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesWound HealingAdultDiagnostic Self EvaluationFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsSurgical Wound InfectionYoung Adultcontent validityitem constructionoutcome measurementpatient-reported outcomequestionnaire development

Identifiers

PMID31446412
PMCPMC6720518

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.