Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39414637›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024

The patient-reported outcome measure for older people living with frailty receiving acute care (PROM-OPAC): field-testing and validation.

James D van Oppen, Simon P Conroy, Jagruti Lalseta, Nicola Mackintosh, Peter Riley, Vivien Richardson, Jose M Valderas, Timothy J Coats

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

8 authors.

James D van OppenCentre for Urgent and Emergency Care Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. james.vanoppen@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2570-7112
Simon P ConroyMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing, University College London, London, UK.
Jagruti LalsetaLeicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Older Persons Patient and Public Involvement Forum, Leicester, UK.
Nicola MackintoshCollege of Life Sciences, George Davies Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Peter RileyLeicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Older Persons Patient and Public Involvement Forum, Leicester, UK.
Vivien RichardsonLeicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Older Persons Patient and Public Involvement Forum, Leicester, UK.
Jose M ValderasDepartment of Family Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Timothy J CoatsCollege of Life Sciences, George Davies Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research Doctoral Research Fellowship NIHR300901National Institute for Health and Care Research Senior Investigator
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent acute healthcare service metrics are not meaningful for older people living with frailty. Healthcare knowledge, situational security, and physical and psychosocial function are important outcomes typically not collected. The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could support these assessments. Existing instruments are not comprehensive as they typically consider function, while older people with frailty also value enablement (self-determination and security in health and healthcare). This study field-tested and validated a PROM for older people with frailty receiving acute care (PROM-OPAC) to measure enablement.

methodsPeople aged 65+ with Clinical Frailty Scale 5-8 were recruited within seventy-two hours of an emergency attendance. Iterations of the novel instrument were administered over three stages: (1) preliminary field-testing for reliability (response distribution and internal consistency) and structure (exploratory factor analysis, EFA); (2) intermediate field-testing of an improved instrument for reliability and structure; (3) final draft validation assessing reliability, structure (confirmatory factor analysis, CFA), and construct validity based on a priori hypotheses. Feasibility was appraised throughout using data completeness and response rates and times.

results241 people participated. Three items of a preliminary seven-item measure had poor response distribution or loading and were accordingly improved. The intermediate instrument had interpretability issues and three items required further improvement. The final eight-item draft had acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.71), structure (two factors for self-determination and security; RMSEA: 0.065; TLI: 0.917; CFI: 0.944), and construct validity (lower scores from respondents waiting longer and requiring admission). Feasibility was promising (response rate 39%; 98% responses complete; median completion time 11 (IQR: 12) minutes).

conclusionsAdministration of the PROM-OPAC appeared feasible and the instrument had acceptable psychometric properties. Further evaluation is required to assess generalisability.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychometricsAgedAged, 80 and overFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesEmergency careFrailtyPatient-reported outcome measure

Identifiers

PMID39414637
PMCPMC11484973

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.