학술논문
Mixed methods study to develop the content validity and the conceptual framework of the electronic patient-reported outcome measure for vascular conditions
Document Type
article
Author
Sanjay Patel; Peter Holt; Jonathan Michaels; Andrew Gordon; Ahmed Aber; Patrick Phillips; Elizabeth Lumley; Stephen Radley; Steven M Thomas; Shah Nawaz; Georgina Jones; Alison Abbott; Ayman Badawy; Nasim Akhtar; Alam Faisal; Wissam Al-Jundi; Matthew Armon; Lukla Biasi; Matt Bown; Tommaso Donati; Tony Fox; Linda Hands; Gary Hicken; Shelley Jackson; Brenda King; Talia Lea; Greg McMahon; John Mosley; Gaynor Radley; Harjeet Rayt; Rob Sayers; Paul Tisi
Source
BMJ Open, Vol 10, Iss 8 (2020)
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
2044-6055
Abstract
Objective The aim of this paper is to describe the stages undertaken to generate the items and conceptual framework of a new electronic personal assessment questionnaire for vascular conditions.Design A mixed methods study: First a survey of vascular clinicians was completed to identify the most common conditions treated in vascular clinics and wards. Quantitative systematic reviews were done to identify validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for direct inclsuion in the new instrument. However, due to scarcity of validated PROMs, the items of the new instrument were mainly based on a large qualitative study of patients and systematic reviews of the qualitative evidence . This was followed by a quantitative clinicians’ consensus study and, finally, a qualitative face validity study with patients.Participants Vascular patients participated in the primary qualitative study and the face validity study. In the qualitative study, 55 patients were interviewed, and for the face validity, 19 patients gave feedback. Twelve clinicians completed the survey and 13 completed two cycles of the clinicians’ consensus study.Results The items and scales in the electronic personal assessment questionnaire for vascular conditions (ePAQ-VAS) were generated based on the results of five systematic reviews evaluating existing PROMs for possible inclusion in ePAQ-VAS, five systematic reviews of qualitative evidence, a primary qualitative study involving 55 patients and clinicians’ input. One hundred and sixty-eight items were initially generated, of which 59 were eliminated by the expert panel due to repetition. The instrument was divided into one generic and three disease-specific sections (abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery disease and lower limb vascular conditions). In each section, items were grouped together into putative scales. Fifty-five items were grouped across eight scales; the remaining items were kept as individual items, because of relevance to service users.Conclusions This multidimensional electronic questionnaire covers the most common vascular conditions. This is particularly important for patients presenting with mixed symptoms or multiple conditions. This tool captures symptomatology, health related quality of life (HRQoL) and other clinically relevant data, such as experience with services and comorbidities.