Comparison of the Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire and the BODY-Q in Danish patients undergoing weight loss and body contouring surgery.
BODY-Q
MAQOL
bariatric
body contouring
massive weight loss
patient-reported outcome measure
Journal
Clinical obesity
ISSN: 1758-8111
Titre abrégé: Clin Obes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101560587
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
21
09
2019
revised:
25
11
2019
accepted:
04
12
2019
pubmed:
4
1
2020
medline:
25
11
2020
entrez:
4
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study compared the measurement properties of the Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire-II (MAQOL-II) and the BODY-Q, to determine which was more suitable for measuring patient-reported outcome (PRO) in Danish bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BC) patients. We examined content validity against the COSMIN guidelines and compared psychometric performance using Rasch measurement theory methods and criteria. MAQOL-II data were obtained from the Danish Bariatric Surgery Database from September 2010 to November 2017, and BODY-Q data were collected from June 2015 to March 2018. The MAQOL-II failed to meet recommended standards for content validity, while all criteria were met for the BODY-Q. A total of 16 965 MAQOL-II and 2259 BODY-Q assessments were obtained. A random sample was selected from the MAQOL-II dataset to match the BODY-Q sample. Psychometrically, the BODY-Q performed better than the MAQOL-II. For example, Cronbach's α was 0.82 for the MAQOL-II vs ≥0.90 for all BODY-Q scales. Fifty percent (3/6) of MAQOL-II items had disordered thresholds, while all BODY-Q items had ordered thresholds (123/123). Poor item fit was revealed for 17% (1/6) of MAQOL-II and 8% (10/123) of BODY-Q items. For scale reliability, person separation index was 0.79 for the MAQOL-II and 0.88 (0.81-0.93) for the BODY-Q. In conclusion, the MAQOL-II does not meet today's standards for a rigorously developed PRO measure. The BODY-Q, on the other hand, gives substantial, accurate and interpretable measurement and should be recommended for use in PRO in BS and BC patients.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e12351Subventions
Organisme : the Region of Southern Denmark
Informations de copyright
© 2020 World Obesity Federation.
Références
Danish National Health Data Board. Overview of number of bariatric procedures. https://www.esundhed.dk/Emner/Operationer-og-diagnoser/Fedmeoperationer Accessed August 21, 2019.
Kitzinger HB, Abayev S, Pittermann A, et al. After massive weight loss: patients' expectations of body contouring surgery. Obes Surg. 2012;22(4):544-548.
Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Alderman A, et al. The BODY-Q: a patient-reported outcome instrument for weight loss and body contouring treatments. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4(4):e679.
Ellison JM, Steffen KJ, Sarwer DB. Body contouring after bariatric surgery. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2015 Nov;23(6):479-487.
Poulsen L, Klassen A, Rose M, et al. Psychometric validation of the BODY-Q in Danish patients undergoing weight loss and body contouring surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(10):e1529.
Reavey PL, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, et al. Measuring quality of life and patient satisfaction after body contouring: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(7):807-813.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539-549.
de Vries CEE, Kalff MC, Prinsen CAC, et al. Recommendations on the most suitable quality-of-life measurement instruments for bariatric and body contouring surgery: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2018;19(10):1395-1411.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-745.
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 Dec;14(8):967-77. PubMed PMID: 22152165.
Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, et al. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(3):193-205.
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 2-assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14(8):978-988.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79.
Poulsen L, McEvenue G, Klassen A, Hoogbergen M, Sorensen JA, Pusic A. Patient-reported outcome measures. BODY-Q. Clin Plast Surg. 2019;46(1):15-24.
Moorehead MK, Ardelt-Gattinger E, Lechner H, Oria HE. The validation of the Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire II. Obes Surg. 2003;13(5):684-692.
Danish Committee Law. Ministry of health and elderly; 2017. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=136248. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159-1170.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. The COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016;20(2):105-113.
Odense Patient data Explorative Network, University of Southern Denmark. Available at https://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/institutter_centre/klinisk_institut/forskning/forskningsenheder/open. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Poulsen L, Rose M, Klassen A, Roessler KK, Sorensen JA. Danish translation and linguistic validation of the BODY-Q: a description of the process. Eur J Plast Surg. 2017;40(1):29-38.
Poulsen L, Klassen A, Rose M, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in weight loss and body contouring surgery: a cross-sectional analysis using the BODY-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(3):491-500.
Hobart J, Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(12):1-177.
Oria HE, Moorehead MK. Bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system (BAROS). Obes Surg. 1998;8(5):487-499.
Oria HE, Moorehead MK. Updated bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system (BAROS). Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009;5(1):60-66.
Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Johnson J, Pusic AL. Satisfaction and quality-of-life issues in body contouring surgery patients: a qualitative study. Obes Surg. 2012;22(10):1527-1534.
Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Tsangaris E, Pusic AL. Assessing outcomes in body contouring. Clin Plast Surg. 2014;41(4):645-654.
Poulsen L, Roessler KK, Rose M, Bakholdt V, Sorensen JA. Quality of life of bariatric and body contouring. Ugeskr Laeger. 2015;177(20):25967248.
Danish Clinical Quality Development Program (Regionernes kliniske kvalitetsudviklingsprogram). Guidelines for implementation and use of patient-reported outcome data in clinican quality databases. https://www.rkkp.dk/siteassets/om-rkkp/drift-og-udvikling/diverse-projekter/historiske-manualer/vejledningpro_september-2-2015.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Poulsen L, Pusic A, Robson S, et al. The BODY-Q stretch marks scale: a development and validation study. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38(9):990-997.
Klassen AF, Kaur M, Poulsen L, et al. Development of the BODY-Q chest module evaluating outcomes following chest contouring surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(6):1600-1608. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004978.
Lorenzen MM, Poulsen L, Bo Thomsen J, Dyrberg DL, Klassen A, Sorensen JA. Danish translation and linguistic validation of the BODY-Q chest module. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;4:1-4.
Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94, 15804318-104.
WHO (World Health Organization). Process of translation and adaption of instruments; 2017. http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Danish Clinical Quality Development Program (Regionernes kliniske kvalitetsudviklingsprogram). Danish Bariatreic Surgery Database, annual report 2011; 2012. https://www.sundhed.dk/content/cms/22/14022_dansk-fedmekirurgiregister_%C3%A5rsrapport_2011.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Danish Clinical Quality Development Program (Regionernes kliniske kvalitetsudviklingsprogram). Danish Bariatreic Surgery Database, annual report 2012; 2013. https://www.sundhed.dk/content/cms/22/14022_dk_fedmekirurgiregister_rapport2012_final.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Danish Clinical Quality Development Program (Regionernes kliniske kvalitetsudviklingsprogram). Danish Bariatreic Surgery Database, annual report 2013; 2014. http://bmibrikken.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DK_Fedmekirurgiregister_%C3%A5rsrapport_2013_final.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Danish Clinical Quality Development Program (Regionernes kliniske kvalitetsudviklingsprogram). Danish Bariatreic Surgery Database, annual report 2014; 2015. https://www.sundhed.dk/content/cms/22/14022_dk_fedmekirurgiregister_%C3%A5rsrapport_2014_final.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Danish Clinical Quality Development Program (Regionernes kliniske kvalitetsudviklingsprogram). Danish Bariatreic Surgery Database, annual report 2015; 2016. http://bmibrikken.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Fedmekirurgiregister_%C3%A5rsrapport_2015.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Danish Clinical Quality Development Program (Regionernes kliniske kvalitetsudviklingsprogram). Danish Bariatreic Surgery Database, annual report 2016; 2017. https://www.sundhed.dk/content/cms/22/14022_dk_fedmekirurgiregister_kommenteret_%C3%A5rsrapport_2016_offentligg%C3%B8relse.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Khadka J, Gothwal VK, McAlinden C, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcome. 2012;10:80.
Cano SJ, Hobart JC. The problem with health measurement. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:279-290.
Shih T-H, Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field Methods. 2008;20(3):249-271.
Geerads D, Klassen AF, Hoogbergen MM, et al. Streamlining the assessment of patient-reported outcomes in weight loss and body contouring patients: applying computerized adaptive testing to the BODY-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(5):946e-955e.
Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Pusic AL. A closer look at the BREAST-Q. Clin Plastic Surg. 2013;40(2):287-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.002.
Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Alderman A, Pusic AL. Interpreting clinical differences in BREAST-Q scores: minimal important difference. Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(1):173e-175e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000267.
Hobart JC, Cano SJ, Zajicek JP, Thompson AJ. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 2007 Dec;6(12):1094-1105.
O'Connor RJ, Cano SJ, Thompson AJ, Hobart JC. Exploring rating scale responsiveness: does the total score reflect the sum of its parts? Neurology. 2004;62(10):1842-1844.
Hobart J, Cano S, Baron R, et al. Achieving valid patient-reported outcomes measurement: a lesson from fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2013;19(13):1773-1783.