2010 review - Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement - University ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix C Table v: Summary of cardiovascular-specific, dimension-specific measures Instrument References Angina Questionnaire Peduzzi & Hultgren, 1979 Peduzzi, Hultgren et al., 1987 VA Co-operative Study of Coronary Artery Surgery Barnason Efficacy Expectation Scale Barnason et al. (2002) Cardiac Adjustment Scale *Rumbaugh (1966) - source Brown & Rawlinson (1979) Cardiac Depression Scale *Hare & Davis (1996) – source Birks et al. (2004) King et al. (2009) Intended purpose/study Content and scoring Psychometric properties reported with ECP population populations [other cardiac populations] Patients with CAD 1. Severity of angina (frequency of Reliability – test-retest angina, presence of rest/nocturnal Validity - discriminative angina, type of activity producing Responsiveness angina) 2. Medications used Interpretability Patients undergoing CABG – measures self-efficacy relating to recovery Psychological assessment of patients with cardiac disease – potential for rehabilitation Patients (n=51) randomised to surgical or medical management of angina Measure of depression in cardiac disease; developed in medical cardiac patients in Australia, further validated in the UK Men recovering from CABS (n=120) Severity score + medication score summed to produce total; score range 0-18 where 11=severe angina 15 items covering: Physical functioning Psychosocial functioning CAD risk factor modification Self-care management 4-point response format 160 items with yes/no responses Score range: 0=poor adjustment, 156=best adjustment 15-20 mins to administer 26 items, five factors: Sleep (2) Anhedonia (3) Uncertainty (6) Mood (5) Cognition (4) Hopelessness (3) Inactivity (3) 7-point response scales, higher scores indicate more severe depression 44 Validity – content Reliability – internal consistency Validity – construct [reported by developers*: Validity – content Reliability – internal consistency Validity – predictive Feasibility] Reliability – test-retest [reported by developers*: Validity – content Reliability – internal consistency Validity – construct Feasibility] Reliability – internal consistency Validity – construct Responsiveness Acceptability Comment A source for content of SAQ (Spertus et al., 1994b) Appears more sensitive to depression in this population than BDI and HADS
Cardiac Event Threat Questionnaire, CTQ Bennett et al. (1996) Cardiac Self-Efficacy Questionnaire *Sullivan et al. (1998) – source Mark et al. (2009b) Cardiac Surgery Symptom Inventory Miller & Grindel (2004) Gallagher (2004) Cardiac Symptoms Scale Plach & Heidrich (2001) Plach & Heidrich (2002) Measures threat/stress in relation to cardiac events Patients hospitalised for angina, MI or cardiac surgery (n=270) Measures patient confidence in controlling symptoms and maintaining function in CHD Comparison CABG + SVR with CABG (n= 991) Comparison of symptoms in older (>65) and younger (
Page 1: PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASUREMEN
Page 5: A STRUCTURED REVIEW OF PATIENT-REPO
Page 8 and 9: Fifteen cardiovascular-specific mea
Page 10 and 11: Heart disease in the UK Coronary he
Page 12 and 13: Hand-searching of titles of key jou
Page 14 and 15: 2. PREFERENCE-BASED MEASURES Four p
Page 16 and 17: Response rates of 93% and above wer
Page 18 and 19: 3. GENERIC PROMs Six generic measur
Page 20 and 21: Responsiveness of the NHP was suppo
Page 22 and 23: The PF subscale discriminated betwe
Page 24 and 25: neuropsychologic deficits, and mood
Page 26 and 27: (2009), with women having significa
Page 28 and 29: 4. CARDIOVASCULAR-SPECIFIC PROMs Ca
Page 30 and 31: larger than for the SF-36 SF and MH
Page 32 and 33: Responsiveness of the DASI was illu
Page 34 and 35: satisfaction with various aspects o
Page 36 and 37: the SAQ AF and QL scales showed sig
Page 38 and 39: Content of the SOIS was based on fa
Page 40 and 41: undergoing ECP. However, it is (int
Page 42 and 43: Table 3: Summary of instruments: he
Page 44 and 45: Table ii: Appraisal criteria Apprai
Page 46 and 47: SF-20: MOS 20-item Short Form Healt
Page 48 and 49: Duke Activity Status Index, DASI (1
Page 52 and 53: Control Attitudes Index* *Moser & D
Page 54 and 55: Appendix D Membership, methods of w
Page 56 and 57: CROQ This suite of instruments was
Page 58 and 59: Patient-reported Outcome Measure Ra
Page 60 and 61: Appendix E: Abbreviations and acron
Page 62 and 63: Barnason S, Zimmerman L, Nieveen J,
Page 64 and 65: Department of Health, London, March
Page 66 and 67: Höfer S, Lim L, Guyatt GH, Oldridg
Page 68 and 69: Lee GA. Patients reported health-re
Page 70 and 71: Penckofer S, Ferrans CE, Fink N, Ba
Page 72 and 73: Spertus JA, Winder JA, Fihn SD, Dew
Page 74: Zhang Z, Spertus JA, Mahoney EM, Bo

2010 review - Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement - University ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?