Funderbjerrum4376

Objectives Although comorbidities play an essential role in risk adjustment and outcomes measurement, there is little consensus regarding the best source of this data. The aim of this study was to identify general patient-reported morbidity instruments and their measurement properties. Methods A systematic review was conducted using multiple electronic databases (Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science) from inception to March 2018. Articles focusing primarily on the development or subsequent validation of a patient-reported morbidity instrument were included. After including relevant articles, the measurement properties of each morbidity instrument were extracted by 2 investigators for narrative synthesis. Results A total of 1005 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. The most widely assessed instruments were the Self-Reported Charlson Comorbidity Index (n = 7), the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (n = 3), and the Disease Burden Morbidity Assessment (n = 3). The most commonly included conditions were diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction. Studies demonstrated substantial variability in item-level reliability versus the gold standard medical record review (κ range 0.66-0.86), meaning that the accuracy of the self-reported comorbidity data is dependent on the selected morbidity. Conclusions The Self-Reported Charlson Comorbidity Index and the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire were the most frequently cited instruments. Significant variability was observed in reliability per comorbid condition of patient-reported morbidity questionnaires. Further research is needed to determine whether patient-reported morbidity data should be used to bolster medical records data or serve as a stand-alone entity when risk adjusting observational outcomes data.Objectives Carer quality-of-life (QoL) effects are recommended for inclusion in economic evaluations, but little is known about the relative performance of different types of QoL measures with carers. This study evaluated the validity and responsiveness of 3 care-related QoL measures (the Carer Experience Scale [CES], CarerQoL-7D, and ASCOT-Carer), 1 health-related QoL measure (the EQ-5D-5L), and 1 generic QoL measure (the ICECAP-A). Methods Validity and responsiveness were assessed in a UK sample of informal carers of adults with dementia, stroke, mental illness, or rheumatoid arthritis. A questionnaire containing the 5 QoL measures was posted to carers identified through the Family Resources Survey (N = 1004). Hypotheses regarding the anticipated associations between constructs related to the QoL of carers were tested to investigate construct validity and responsiveness. Results Each measure exhibited some level of construct validity. In general, larger effect sizes and stronger associations were detected for the ASCOT-Carer and ICECAP-A measures in the pooled sample and across all conditions. The 5 measures did not exhibit clear responsiveness to changes over a 12-month period in care recipient health status or hours of care provided per week. Conclusion The results of this study provide initial evidence of the validity of care-related, health-related, and generic QoL (capability) measures in informal carers of adults with 4 highly prevalent conditions. Care-related measures were not always more sensitive to constructs associated with QoL of carers compared with generic measures. The performance of the ICECAP-A was comparable with that of the best-performing care-related measure, the ASCOT-Carer.Objectives The usefulness of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to inform clinical guidelines rests on the assumption that patients facing the same treatment choice at different points in time will express the same preferences. This study provides the first investigation, to our knowledge, to specifically focus on the stability of patients' treatment preferences over the course of a clinical trial. Methods The same DCE was completed by participants at baseline and final post-treatment assessment in a trial of the efficacy of alternative topical treatments for actinic keratosis as a means for the prevention of skin cancer. The study assesses both the consistency of stated treatment choices and the stability of population-level preference parameter estimates and analyzes how the former is influenced by design aspects of the DCE. Results No evidence was found of population-level preference parameter instability over the course of the trial despite only a moderate strength of choice consistency. Choice consistency is negatively related to task difficulty with weak evidence of the existence of ordering effects over the sequence of choice tasks. Conclusions The results provide no evidence that the timing of a DCE within a clinical trial significantly influences population-level treatment preference estimates.Objective We investigated the quantification of the response shift-adjusted treatment effect on quality-of-life (QOL) data in a randomized controlled trial of taxane versus S-1 for patients with metastatic breast cancer (SELECT-BC). Methods This study was a secondary data analysis of a previously published trial. The response shift-adjusted treatment effect on health-related QOL (HRQOL) data measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was estimated using structural equation modeling techniques in addition to quantifying the "true" treatment effect. Measurement invariances in the values of the common factor loadings, intercepts, and residual variances between before treatment and at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits were considered the response shift effects. Results In the taxane group, we observed positive recalibration effects for role functioning and positive reprioritization and negative recalibration effects for emotional functioning. The observed change of -4.56 for role functioning comprised +2.26 response shifts and -6.82 "true" change. The observed change of +9.41 for emotional functioning comprised +12.43 response shifts and -1.17 "true" change. In the S-1 group, we observed positive reprioritization and negative recalibration effects for emotional functioning and positive reprioritization effects for social functioning. The observed change of +10.54 for emotional functioning comprised +10.07 response shifts and +0.47 "true" change. buy Tivozanib The observed change of +2.43 for social functioning comprised +3.50 response shifts and -1.07 "true" change. Conclusion Detailed analysis of the response shift effects will improve the evaluation reliability of observed HRQOL data during clinical trials.