Patient-Reported Outcomes for Quality of Life Assessment in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

Abstract

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is a large and growing burden across all types of healthcare. Both incidence and prevalence are expected to double in the next 20 years, with huge impact on hospital admissions, costs and patient quality of life. Patient wellbeing determines the management strategy for atrial fibrillation, including the use of rhythm control therapy and the clinical success of heart rate control. Hence, evaluation of quality of life is an emerging and important part of the assessment of patients with atrial fibrillation. Although a number of questionnaires to assess quality of life in atrial fibrillation are available, a comprehensive overview of their measurement properties is lacking.Methods and ResultsWe performed a systematic review of the measurement properties of atrial fibrillation-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires. Methodological quality was assessed using the Consensus based Standards for selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist, with measurement properties rated for quality against optimal criteria and levels of evidence. We screened 2,216 articles, of which eight articles describing five questionnaires were eligible for inclusion: Atrial Fibrillation 6 (AF6), Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-Life (AFEQT), Atrial Fibrillation Quality of Life Questionnaire (AFQLQ), Atrial Fibrillation Quality of Life (AFQoL), and Quality of Life in Atrial Fibrillation (QLAF). Good reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability) was demonstrated for AF6, AFEQT, AFQLQ and AFQoL. Content, construct and criterion validity were positively rated only in AFEQT. Responsiveness was positively rated only in AFEQT, but with limited evidence. Overall, AFEQT showed strong positive evidence for 2 of 9 measurement properties, compared to one for AFQoL and none for the remaining questionnaires.InterpretationGiven the low ratings for many measurement properties, no single questionnaire can be recommended, although AFEQT performed strongest. Further studies to robustly assess reliability, validity and responsiveness of AF-specific quality of life questionnaires are required. This review consolidates the current evidence for quality of life assessment in patients with atrial fibrillation and identifies priority areas for future research.

Screening for oropharyngeal dysphagia in older adults: A systematic review of self‐reported questionnaires

“…After selecting the articles, an analysis was performed by the COSMIN (COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments), a standardised guideline for critical evaluation of the methodological quality of studies that investigate the psychometric properties of measurement instruments in health. COSMIN became known in 2006, when a group of researchers published this initiative to standardise analysis of the psychometric properties of self‐reported questionnaires, and its product resulted in a checklist that describes a set of criteria for evaluating measures in health care, as well as a description of how results may be interpreted on a scale of four categories based on the interpretation strategies of recent systematic reviews …”

“…The psychometric evaluation quality of instruments was subsequently re‐examined in the following sequence: content validity, internal consistency, criterion validity, construct validity and reproducibility (compliance and reliability), responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects and interpretability, by evaluating the presence or not of these properties using the following categories of evaluation: positive (+), undetermined (? ), negative (−) or no information available (0) …”

Patient‐reported outcome instruments that evaluate adherence behaviours in adults with asthma: a systematic review of measurement properties

“…The quality of the measurement properties was rated as positive, negative or undetermined, according to the criteria used by Kotecha et al . . Reviewers' disagreements were resolved either by consensus or discussion with a third author (J.M.…”

Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes Using the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement Dataset in a Major German University Hospital: Observational Study (Preprint)

“…This point as well as the first are important aspects and we are currently addressing both of them and plan to publish the results in a following publication . 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 Comparison with Prior Work While there is increasing interest in the potential of PRO measurements in almost all disease entities [22,23,24,25] there is still a lack of standards what to measure and how to measure it. The ICHOM initiative has therefore created a working group for a wide range of diseases with the goal to establish standard sets to compare outcomes between different providers, hospitals and even countries [26].…”