Establishing meaningful change thresholds for Clinical Outcome Assessments (COA) is critical for score interpretation. While anchor- and distribution-based statistical methods are well-established, qualitative approaches are less frequently used. This commentary summarizes and expands on a symposium presented at the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) 2017 annual conference, which provided an overview of qualitative methods that can be used to support understanding of meaningful change thresholds on COAs. Further published literature and additional examples from multiple disease areas which have also qualitatively explored the concept of meaningful change are presented. Semi-structured interviews conducted independently from a clinical trial, exit interviews conducted in the context of a clinical trial, focus groups, vignettes and the Delphi panel method can be used to obtain data regarding meaningful change thresholds, with advantages and disadvantages to each method. Semi-structured interviews using concept elicitation (CE) or cognitive debriefing (CD) methods conducted independently from a clinical trial can be an efficient way to gain in-depth patient/caregiver insights. However, there can be challenges with reconciling heterogeneous data across diverse samples and in interpreting the qualitative insights in the context of quantitative score changes. Semi-structured qualitative interviews using CE/CD methods embedded as exit interviews in a clinical trial context with patients/caregivers can provide insights which can augment quantitative findings based on analysis of clinical trial data. However, there are logistical challenges relating to embedding the interviews in a clinical trial. Focus groups and the Delphi panel method can be valuable for reaching consensus regarding meaningful change thresholds; however, for face-to-face interactions, social desirability bias can affect responses. Finally, using vignettes and taking a mixed methods approach can aid in achieving consensus on the minimum score change endorsed by respondents as a meaningful improvement/decrement. However, the approach can be cognitively challenging for participants and reaching a consensus is not guaranteed. Anchor- and distribution- based methods remain critical in establishing responder definitions. Nonetheless, qualitative data has the potential to provide complementary support that a certain level of change on the target COA, which has been statistically supported, is truly important and meaningful for the target population.
ObjectivesSleep disturbance is a common experience in fibromyalgia (FM). The field lacks a sleep specific patient reported outcome (PRO) measure developed and validated in a FM population. The study objective is to gain an in-depth understanding of sleep in FM and to develop a PRO measure of it.MethodsResearch involved the following stages: 1) A literature review conducted to identify key concepts associated with FM patient experience of sleep and PRO measures that have been used to assess this; 2) Qualitative interviews with therapeutic area experts; 3) Focus groups with FM patients who experienced sleep disturbance; 4) Development of a conceptual framework and the Fibromyalgia Sleep Diary (FMSD); and 5) Cognitive interviews with patients to explore content validity of the FMSD.ResultsThe literature review and expert interviews supported sleep disturbance being an important aspect of the FM patient experience, and underscored the need for a new FM specific sleep PRO measure. Results from the focus groups demonstrated that FM patients experience sleep disturbances that they attribute to their FM symptoms, such as pain and stiffness, confirming the importance of understanding more about sleep changes. Aspects of sleep raised by FM patients included poor sleep quality and insufficient quantity including difficulty with falling asleep, getting comfortable, and staying asleep; restlessness; light sleep; not feeling rested upon awakening; and difficulty starting the day. Cognitive interview results showed that the 8-item FMSD, developed to reflect the concepts identified above, was relevant to FM patients with content that was interpreted as intended.ConclusionsThe FMSD was developed in line with the recommendations of the FDA PRO guidance and ISPOR PRO Task Force. The qualitative evidence generated thus far strongly supports the content validity of the FMSD as a PRO measure of sleep disturbance in FM populations. Psychometric evaluation of the FMSD to demonstrate reliability, validity and sensitivity to change is recommended as a next step.
The results of this study suggest that patients' understanding of asthma control extends beyond the usual clinical manifestation of respiratory symptoms and lung function. This may have implications for clinical practice, for setting and achieving the goals of asthma control as well as for evaluation of treatments for asthma from the patients' perspective.
BackgroundFibromyalgia (FM), a disorder characterized by chronic widespread pain and tenderness, affects greater than five million individuals in the United States alone. Patients experience multiple symptoms in addition to pain, and among them, fatigue is one of the most bothersome and disabling. There is a growing body of literature suggesting that fatigue is a multidimensional concept. Currently, to our knowledge, no multidimensional Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) measure of FM-related fatigue meets Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements to support a product label claim. Therefore, the objective of this research was to evaluate qualitative and quantitative data previously gathered to inform the development of a comprehensive, multidimensional, PRO measure to assess FM-related fatigue in FM clinical trials.MethodsExisting qualitative and quantitative data from three previously conducted studies in patients with FM were reviewed to inform the initial development of a multidimensional PRO measure of FM-related fatigue: 1) a concept elicitation study involving in-depth, open-ended interviews with patients with FM in the United States (US) (N = 20), Germany (N = 10), and France (N = 10); 2) a cognitive debriefing and pilot study of a preliminary pool of 23 items (N = 20 US patients with FM); and 3) a methodology study that explored initial psychometrics of the item pool (N = 145 US patients with FM).ResultsFive domains were identified that intend to capture the broad experience of FM-related fatigue reported in the qualitative research: the Global Fatigue Experience, Cognitive Fatigue, Physical Fatigue, Motivation, and Impact on Function. Seventeen of the original pool of 23 items were selected to best capture these five dimensions. These 17 items formed the basis of a newly developed multidimensional PRO measure to assess FM-related fatigue in clinical trials: the Multidimensional Daily Diary of Fatigue-Fibromyalgia-17 (MDF-Fibro-17).ConclusionQualitative analysis, and preliminary quantitative item level data, confirmed that FM-related fatigue is multidimensional and provided strong support for the content validity of the MDF-Fibro-17. The next stage was to quantitatively evaluate the measure to confirm the factor structure, psychometric properties, sensitivity to change, and meaningful change. This has been conducted and is being reported separately.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.