Measurement properties and interpretability of the Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure.


Journal

The British journal of dermatology
ISSN: 1365-2133
Titre abrégé: Br J Dermatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0004041

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 22 12 2023
revised: 07 06 2024
accepted: 26 06 2024
medline: 26 6 2024
pubmed: 26 6 2024
entrez: 26 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are crucial for assessing the impact of dermatological conditions on patients' lives, but the existing dermatology-specific PROMs are not recommended for use according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). We developed the Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure in partnership with patients. It has strong evidence of content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, acceptability, and feasibility. To test PRIDD's remaining measurement properties and establish the interpretability of scores against the COSMIN criteria using classic and modern psychometric methods. A global longitudinal study consisting of two online surveys administered two to four weeks apart. Adults (≥ 18 years) living with a dermatological condition were recruited through the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations' (GlobalSkin) membership network. Participants completed PRIDD, a demographics questionnaire, and other related measures including the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). We tested PRIDD's criterion validity, construct validity and responsiveness (Spearman's ρ, independent-samples t-tests and ANOVA), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), measurement error (Smallest Detectable Change or Limits of Agreement [LoA], distribution-based Minimally Important Change [MIC]), floor and ceiling effects (number of minimum and maximum scores and Person-Item Location Distribution Maps), score bandings (κ coefficient of agreement) and anchor-based MIC. 504 patients with 35 dermatological conditions from 38 countries participated. Criterion validity (ρ = 0.79), construct validity (76% hypotheses met), test-retest validity (ICC = 0.93), and measurement error (LoA = 1.3 < MIC = 4.14) were sufficient. Floor and ceiling effects were in the acceptable range (< 15%). Score bandings were determined (κ = 0.47), however, the anchor-based MIC could not be calculated due to an insufficient anchor. PRIDD is a valid and reliable tool to evaluate the impact of dermatological disease on patients' lives in research and clinical practice. It is the first dermatology-specific PROM to meet the COSMIN criteria. These results support the value of developing and validating PROMs with a patient-centred approach and using classic and modern psychometric methods. Further testing of responsiveness and MIC, cross-cultural translation, linguistic validation, and global data collection are planned.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are crucial for assessing the impact of dermatological conditions on patients' lives, but the existing dermatology-specific PROMs are not recommended for use according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). We developed the Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure in partnership with patients. It has strong evidence of content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, acceptability, and feasibility.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
To test PRIDD's remaining measurement properties and establish the interpretability of scores against the COSMIN criteria using classic and modern psychometric methods.
METHODS METHODS
A global longitudinal study consisting of two online surveys administered two to four weeks apart. Adults (≥ 18 years) living with a dermatological condition were recruited through the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations' (GlobalSkin) membership network. Participants completed PRIDD, a demographics questionnaire, and other related measures including the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). We tested PRIDD's criterion validity, construct validity and responsiveness (Spearman's ρ, independent-samples t-tests and ANOVA), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), measurement error (Smallest Detectable Change or Limits of Agreement [LoA], distribution-based Minimally Important Change [MIC]), floor and ceiling effects (number of minimum and maximum scores and Person-Item Location Distribution Maps), score bandings (κ coefficient of agreement) and anchor-based MIC.
RESULTS RESULTS
504 patients with 35 dermatological conditions from 38 countries participated. Criterion validity (ρ = 0.79), construct validity (76% hypotheses met), test-retest validity (ICC = 0.93), and measurement error (LoA = 1.3 < MIC = 4.14) were sufficient. Floor and ceiling effects were in the acceptable range (< 15%). Score bandings were determined (κ = 0.47), however, the anchor-based MIC could not be calculated due to an insufficient anchor.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
PRIDD is a valid and reliable tool to evaluate the impact of dermatological disease on patients' lives in research and clinical practice. It is the first dermatology-specific PROM to meet the COSMIN criteria. These results support the value of developing and validating PROMs with a patient-centred approach and using classic and modern psychometric methods. Further testing of responsiveness and MIC, cross-cultural translation, linguistic validation, and global data collection are planned.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38924720
pii: 7699819
doi: 10.1093/bjd/ljae267
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.

Auteurs

Rachael Pattinson (R)

School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

Nirohshah Trialonis-Suthakharan (N)

Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Tim Pickles (T)

Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

Jennifer Austin (J)

International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations, Ottawa, Canada.

Allison FitzGerald (A)

International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations, Ottawa, Canada.

Matthias Augustin (M)

Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Christine Bundy (C)

School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

Classifications MeSH