Evidence of the content validity, acceptability, and feasibility of a new Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases measure.
burden of disease
cognitive interview
content validity (MeSH)
dermatology
patient-centered
patient-reported outcome measure
pilot test
quality of life
Journal
Frontiers in medicine
ISSN: 2296-858X
Titre abrégé: Front Med (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101648047
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
16
08
2022
accepted:
30
03
2023
medline:
22
5
2023
pubmed:
22
5
2023
entrez:
22
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Global Research on the Impact of Dermatological Diseases (GRIDD) team is developing the new Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure of the impact of dermatological conditions on the patient's life, in partnership with patients. To develop PRIDD, we conducted a systematic review, followed by a qualitative interview study with 68 patients worldwide and subsequently a global Delphi survey of 1,154 patients to ensure PRIDD items were meaningful and important to patients. To pilot test PRIDD with patients with dermatological conditions, focusing on its content validity (comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, and relevance), acceptability, and feasibility. We conducted a theory-led qualitative study using the Three-Step Test-Interview method of cognitive interviewing. Three rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted online. Adults (≥ 18 years) living with a dermatological condition and who spoke English sufficiently to take part in the interview were recruited through the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations' (GlobalSkin) global membership network. The topic guide met the gold-standard COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) standards for cognitive interviewing. Analysis followed the thematic analytical model of cognitive interviewing. Twelve people (58% male) representing six dermatological conditions from four countries participated. Overall, patients found PRIDD to be comprehensible, comprehensive, relevant, acceptable, and feasible. Participants were able to discern the conceptual framework domains from the items. Feedback resulted in: the recall period being extended from 1 week to 1 month; removal of the 'not relevant' response option; and changes to the instructions and item ordering and wording to improve clarity and increase respondents' confidence in their ability to respond. These evidence-based adjustments resulted in a 26-item version of PRIDD. This study met the gold-standard COSMIN criteria for the pilot testing of health measurement instruments. The data triangulated our previous findings, in particular the conceptual framework of impact. Our findings illuminate how patients understand and respond to PRIDD and other patient-reported measurement instruments. The results of comprehensibility, comprehensiveness, relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of PRIDD provide evidence of content validity from the target population. The next step in the development and validation of PRIDD is psychometric testing.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The Global Research on the Impact of Dermatological Diseases (GRIDD) team is developing the new Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure of the impact of dermatological conditions on the patient's life, in partnership with patients. To develop PRIDD, we conducted a systematic review, followed by a qualitative interview study with 68 patients worldwide and subsequently a global Delphi survey of 1,154 patients to ensure PRIDD items were meaningful and important to patients.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
To pilot test PRIDD with patients with dermatological conditions, focusing on its content validity (comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, and relevance), acceptability, and feasibility.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We conducted a theory-led qualitative study using the Three-Step Test-Interview method of cognitive interviewing. Three rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted online. Adults (≥ 18 years) living with a dermatological condition and who spoke English sufficiently to take part in the interview were recruited through the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations' (GlobalSkin) global membership network. The topic guide met the gold-standard COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) standards for cognitive interviewing. Analysis followed the thematic analytical model of cognitive interviewing.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Twelve people (58% male) representing six dermatological conditions from four countries participated. Overall, patients found PRIDD to be comprehensible, comprehensive, relevant, acceptable, and feasible. Participants were able to discern the conceptual framework domains from the items. Feedback resulted in: the recall period being extended from 1 week to 1 month; removal of the 'not relevant' response option; and changes to the instructions and item ordering and wording to improve clarity and increase respondents' confidence in their ability to respond. These evidence-based adjustments resulted in a 26-item version of PRIDD.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
This study met the gold-standard COSMIN criteria for the pilot testing of health measurement instruments. The data triangulated our previous findings, in particular the conceptual framework of impact. Our findings illuminate how patients understand and respond to PRIDD and other patient-reported measurement instruments. The results of comprehensibility, comprehensiveness, relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of PRIDD provide evidence of content validity from the target population. The next step in the development and validation of PRIDD is psychometric testing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37215711
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1020523
pmc: PMC10196461
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1020523Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Pattinson, Trialonis-Suthakharan, Hewitt, Valencia López, Tahmasebi Gandomkari, Austin, FitzGerald, Courtier, Augustin and Bundy.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Br J Dermatol. 2011 May;164 Suppl 1:1-14
pubmed: 21477010
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2015 Oct;13(10):967-87
pubmed: 26408457
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Feb;176(2):285-287
pubmed: 28244071
Clin Exp Dermatol. 1994 May;19(3):210-6
pubmed: 8033378
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2020 Jan;31(1):66-77
pubmed: 31505076
J Cutan Med Surg. 2001 Mar-Apr;5(2):105-10
pubmed: 11443481
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul;83(1):201-205
pubmed: 31279031
Qual Life Res. 2009 Nov;18(9):1263-78
pubmed: 19784865
Arch Dermatol. 2011 Oct;147(10):1153-6
pubmed: 21680760
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1171-1179
pubmed: 29260445
JAMA Dermatol. 2022 Aug 1;158(8):900-911
pubmed: 35731537
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Jul;33(7):e267-e269
pubmed: 30821001
J Invest Dermatol. 2014 Jun;134(6):1499-1501
pubmed: 24825057
Acta Derm Venereol. 2022 Nov 29;102:adv00823
pubmed: 36065743
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021 Jul;35(7):1493-1504
pubmed: 33428316
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001 Jul;45(1):44-8
pubmed: 11423833
JAMA Dermatol. 2017 May 1;153(5):406-412
pubmed: 28249066
Acta Derm Venereol. 2021 Sep 28;101(9):adv00559
pubmed: 34263330
Health Expect. 2016 Oct;19(5):1121-37
pubmed: 26340682
J Invest Dermatol. 2014 Jun;134(6):1527-1534
pubmed: 24166134
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 May;32(5):783-790
pubmed: 29114942
Qual Life Res. 2021 Aug;30(8):2375-2386
pubmed: 33683650
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Sep;183(3):418-419
pubmed: 32090316
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45
pubmed: 20494804
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Jul;177(1):e4-e7
pubmed: 28555722
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91
pubmed: 11124735
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Jan;33(1):123-127
pubmed: 30160802
Br J Dermatol. 2009 Dec;161(6):1410-2
pubmed: 19785599
J Health Econ. 2008 Sep;27(5):1275-84
pubmed: 18667254
J Invest Dermatol. 1996 Nov;107(5):707-13
pubmed: 8875954
Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):967-77
pubmed: 22152165
Br J Dermatol. 2015;172(5):1210-21
pubmed: 25677764
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(5):363-70
pubmed: 18429654
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009 Jun;9(3):271-83
pubmed: 19527100
Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2197-223
pubmed: 23245608
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011 Feb;25(2):245-6; author reply 246
pubmed: 21118311
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010 Sep;24(9):989-1004
pubmed: 20477920
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Mar 18;10:22
pubmed: 20298572
Qual Life Res. 2021 Aug;30(8):2197-2218
pubmed: 33818733
Curr Dermatol Rep. 2017 Sep;6(3):204-210
pubmed: 29226027
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 26;20(1):130
pubmed: 32456680
Qual Life Res. 2012 Aug;21(6):1013-20
pubmed: 21909804
Acta Derm Venereol. 2005;85(5):409-13
pubmed: 16159732
Arch Dermatol. 1997 Nov;133(11):1433-40
pubmed: 9371029
Qual Life Res. 2021 Jun;30(6):1705-1713
pubmed: 33538979
Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2017 Jul-Sep;26(3):649-659
pubmed: 28977189
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42
pubmed: 17161752
Br J Dermatol. 2019 Apr;180(4):939-940
pubmed: 30430547
Dermatol Clin. 2009 Apr;27(2):137-47, vi
pubmed: 19254657
Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):978-88
pubmed: 22152166
Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jan;184(1):168-169
pubmed: 32730641
Br J Dermatol. 2013 Mar;168(3):577-82
pubmed: 22963149
Curr Med Res Opin. 2009 Apr;25(4):929-42
pubmed: 19257798
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170
pubmed: 29550964
Lancet. 2015 Nov 28;386(10009):2145-91
pubmed: 26321261
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
Am Fam Physician. 2001 Dec 1;64(11):1873-8
pubmed: 11764865