Identifying dimensions of fatigue in haemodialysis important to patients, caregivers and health professionals: An international survey.
fatigue
haemodialysis
patient-reported outcome measures
Journal
Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.)
ISSN: 1440-1797
Titre abrégé: Nephrology (Carlton)
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9615568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
accepted:
02
05
2019
pubmed:
28
7
2019
medline:
16
12
2020
entrez:
27
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patient-reported outcome measures of fatigue used in research in haemodialysis vary widely in the dimensions assessed; and the importance of these dimensions to patients and health professionals is unknown. This study aimed to identify the most important dimensions of fatigue to assess in patients on haemodialysis participating in trials. In an international survey, patients/caregivers and health professionals rated the absolute and relative importance of content and measurement dimensions to include in a core outcome measure of fatigue. A 9-point Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) was used to assess absolute importance and best-worst scale was used to assess importance of each dimension compared to others. In total, 169 patients/caregivers and 336 health professionals from 60 countries completed the survey. Both groups (patients/caregivers and health professionals) rated life participation (7.55), tiredness (7.40), level of energy (7.37), ability to think clearly (7.15), post-dialysis fatigue (7.13), motivation (7.03) and ability to concentrate (7.03) as critically important (mean Likert score greater than 7) content dimensions to include in a core outcome measure. Compared to patients and caregivers, health professionals rated post-dialysis fatigue, memory and verbal abilities more highly. Based on the relative importance scores, life participation was ranked most highly above all content dimensions. Severity was rated and ranked the most important measurement dimension by all stakeholders. A core outcome measure of fatigue should assess impact of fatigue on life participation, tiredness and level of energy, using a severity scale. A consistent and valid measurement of fatigue will improve the value of trials in supporting decision-making based on this important outcome.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcome measures of fatigue used in research in haemodialysis vary widely in the dimensions assessed; and the importance of these dimensions to patients and health professionals is unknown. This study aimed to identify the most important dimensions of fatigue to assess in patients on haemodialysis participating in trials.
METHODS
METHODS
In an international survey, patients/caregivers and health professionals rated the absolute and relative importance of content and measurement dimensions to include in a core outcome measure of fatigue. A 9-point Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) was used to assess absolute importance and best-worst scale was used to assess importance of each dimension compared to others.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 169 patients/caregivers and 336 health professionals from 60 countries completed the survey. Both groups (patients/caregivers and health professionals) rated life participation (7.55), tiredness (7.40), level of energy (7.37), ability to think clearly (7.15), post-dialysis fatigue (7.13), motivation (7.03) and ability to concentrate (7.03) as critically important (mean Likert score greater than 7) content dimensions to include in a core outcome measure. Compared to patients and caregivers, health professionals rated post-dialysis fatigue, memory and verbal abilities more highly. Based on the relative importance scores, life participation was ranked most highly above all content dimensions. Severity was rated and ranked the most important measurement dimension by all stakeholders.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A core outcome measure of fatigue should assess impact of fatigue on life participation, tiredness and level of energy, using a severity scale. A consistent and valid measurement of fatigue will improve the value of trials in supporting decision-making based on this important outcome.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
239-247Informations de copyright
© 2019 Asian Pacific Society of Nephrology.
Références
Jhamb M, Weisbord SD, Steel JL, Unruh M. Fatigue in patients receiving maintenance dialysis: A review of definitions, measures, and contributing factors. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2008; 52: 353-65.
Evangelidis N, Tong A, Manns B et al. Developing a set of Core outcomes for trials in hemodialysis: An international Delphi survey. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2017; 70: 464-75.
Urquhart-Secord R, Craig JC, Hemmelgarn B et al. Patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in hemodialysis: An international nominal group technique study. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2016; 68: 444-54.
Artom M, Moss-Morris R, Caskey F, Chilcot J. Fatigue in advanced kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2014; 86: 497-505.
Ju A, Unruh ML, Davison SN et al. Patient-reported outcome measures for fatigue in patients on hemodialysis: A systematic review. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2018; 71: 327-43.
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ et al. Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1--eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health 2011; 14: 967-77.
Sullivan GM. A primer on the validity of assessment instruments. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2011; 3: 119-20.
Flynn TN, Marley AAJ. Best-worstscaling: Theory and methods. In: Stephane H, Andrew John D (eds). Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 8. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014; 178-201.
Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J. Health Econ. 2007; 26: 171-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.04.002.
Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using best-worst scaling: Comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2008; 8: 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-76.
Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T et al. Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data. Soc. Sci. Med. 2011; 72: 1717-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.027.
Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Qual. Life Res. 2003; 12: 229-38.
Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: A report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health 2016; 2016: 300-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004.
Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health 2013; 16: 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223.
Lancsar E, Louviere J, Donaldson C, Currie G, Burgess L. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013; 76: 74-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.007.
Hanson CS, Chapman JR, Craig JC et al. Patient experiences of training and transition to home haemodialysis: A mixed-methods study. Nephrology (Carlton) 2017; 22: 631-41.
Heiwe S, Clyne N, Dahlgren MA. Living with chronic renal failure: patients' experiences of their physical and functional capacity. Physiother. Res. Int. 2003; 8: 167-77.
Ju A, Unruh M, Davison S et al. Establishing a Core outcome measure for fatigue in patients on hemodialysis: A standardized outcomes in nephrology-hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop report. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2018; 72: 104-12.
Hagren B, Pettersen IM, Severinsson E, Lützén K, Clyne N. Maintenance haemodialysis: patients' experiences of their life situation. J. Clin. Nurs. 2005; 14: 294-300.
Horigan AE, Schneider SM, Docherty S, Barroso J. The experience and self-management of fatigue in patients on hemodialysis. Nephrol. Nurs. J. 2013; 40: 113-23.
Seabrook H. A Contribution to Supporting and Understanding the End Stage Renal Failure Experience. University of Warwick, 2011. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/49348/.
Cella D, Yount S, Sorensen M, Chartash E, Sengupta N, Grober J. Validation of the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy fatigue scale relative to other instrumentation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J. Rheumatol. 2005; 32: 811-9.
Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T et al. Development of a fatigue scale. J. Psychosom. Res. 1993; 37: 147-53.
Gibbons CJ, Mills RJ, Thornton EW et al. Development of a patient reported outcome measure for fatigue in motor neurone disease: The neurological fatigue index (NFI-MND). Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2011; 9: 101.
Tack BB. Dimensions and Correlates of Fatigue in Older Adults with Rheumatoid Arthritis [Microform]. SF: University of California, 1991.
Ware JJE, Gandek B. The SF-36 health survey: Development and use in mental Health Research and the IQOLA project. Int. J. Mental Health 1994; 23: 49-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207411.1994.11449283.
Krupp LB, LaRocca NG, Muir-Nash J, Steinberg AD. The fatigue severity scale: Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch. Neurol. 1989; 46: 1121-3. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460115022.
Haase DA, Fisk JD, Ross L et al. Measuring the functional impact of fatigue: Initial validation of the fatigue impact scale. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1994; 18: S79-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/18.Supplement_1.S79.
Smets EM, Garssen B, Bonke B et al. The multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J. Psychosom. Res. 1995; 39: 315-25.