Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39399824›Full record

ArticlePatient related outcome measures2024

Development and Content Validation of the Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment - Real-World (PQAT-RW): An Instrument to Evaluate Benefits and Disadvantages of Treatments in Real-World Settings.

Aude Roborel de Climens, Amy Findley, Denise P Bury, Keri J S Brady, Matthew Reaney, Adam Gater

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient related outcome measures, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

6 authors.

Aude Roborel de ClimensPatient-Centered Solutions, IQVIA RDS France, La Défense, Cedex, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5065-2010
Amy FindleyPatient-Centered Outcomes, Adelphi Values, Bollington, Cheshire, UK.
Denise P BuryPatient Informed Development & Health Value Translation, Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Keri J S BradyPatient Informed Development & Health Value Translation, Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Matthew ReaneyPatient-Centered Solutions, IQVIA, Reading, UK.
Adam GaterPatient-Centered Outcomes, Adelphi Values, Bollington, Cheshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Quantifying patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages of treatments in a real-world setting is increasingly important in healthcare decision-making. The Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment (PQAT) assesses patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages of treatment, and associated trade-offs potentially influencing patients' willingness to continue treatment. It has then been modified to capture patients' perceived magnitude of benefits and disadvantages of treatment quantitatively, as well as qualitatively (PQATv2). However, the PQAT and the PQATv2 were designed for use and validated in a clinical trial setting. The objective of this study was to adapt and test the content validity of a version of the PQATv2 for use in real-world settings (PQAT-RW). Patients and Methods: The PQATv2 was adapted for use in real-world settings (PQAT-RW), and its content was validated in 16 patients with varied chronic medical conditions and medication regimens via semi-structured qualitative interviews. Results: All participants reported that the PQAT-RW was "easy to understand". The majority (n = 11/16) reported that the items covered all important aspects of their treatment experience, and that no items needed to be removed or added to the instrument. Analysis of free-text responses identified eight global concepts considered by participants when evaluating the benefits and disadvantages of treatment: treatment effectiveness, side effects and method of administration were most frequently considered (as both benefits and disadvantages), followed by frequency of administration, financial considerations, storage, packaging and drug preparation. Conclusion: The results of this study support the content validity of the PQAT-RW. They also demonstrate that using qualitative responses to contextualize quantitative responses provides unique insight into diverse and individualized patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages, and their relative importance, in real-world settings.

Indexed as

patient-reported outcome measurequalitative researchreal-world evidencetreatment experience

Identifiers

PMID39399824
PMCPMC11468370

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.