Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes: Content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 363-370

  Leidy, Nancy Kline ^a   Vernon, Margaret ^a  

^a UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Outcomes research; Patient preference; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTENT VALIDITY; DEVICE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PATIENTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 42449101697     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826050-00002     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures. Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/prolbl.htm [Accessed 2007 Aug 15]
2. US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry and review staff: target product profile. Strategic development process tool. 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/CDER/GUIDANCE/6910dft.htm [Accessed 2007 Aug 15]
3. US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. FDA's critical path initiative [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/ criticalpath/ [Accessed 2007 Aug 15]
4. Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993 Dec; 2 (6): 441-9
5. Nunnally JC, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994
6. Revicki DA. FDA draft guidance and health-outcomes research. Lancet 2007 Feb 17; 369 (9561): 540-2
7. Rock EP. Conceptual framework of an instrument [presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Drug Information Association; 2006 Jun 19; Philadelphia (PA) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/present/DIA2006/ Burke_Rock.ppt #418,11,Conceptual%20Framework%20of%20an%20Instrument [Accessed 2007 Aug 24]
8. Dicicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF. The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 2006 Apr; 40 (4): 314-21
9. Draper AK. The principles and application of qualitative research. Proc Nutr Soc 2004 Nov; 63 (4): 641-6
10. Tobin GA, Begley CM. Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. J Adv Nurs 2004 Nov; 48 (4): 388-96
11. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 2000
12. Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 1997
13. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN, Rook DW. Focus groups: theory and practice. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 2006
14. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 1998
15. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004 Feb; 24 (2): 105-12
16. Willis G. Cognitive interviewing. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 2005
17. Aquilino WS. Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: a field experiment. Public Opin Q 1994; 58 (2): 210-40
18. Dillman D. Mail and internet surveys. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 2000
19. McCabe SE, Boyd CJ, Couper MP, et al. Mode effects for collecting alcohol and other drug use data: web and US mail. J Stud Alcohol 2002 Nov; 63 (6): 755-61
20. Newman JC, Des Jarlais DC, Turner CF, et al. The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes. Am J Public Health 2002 Feb; 92 (2): 294-7
21. Tourangeau R, Smith W. Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q 1996; 60 (2): 275-304
22. US Department of Health and Human Services. Usability.gov.Step-by-step usability guide [online]. Available from URL: http://www.usability.gov/ [Accessed 2007 Aug 15]
23. Fayers PM. Applying item response theory and computer adaptive testing: the challenges for health outcomes assessment. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 Suppl. 1: 187-94
24. Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential item functioning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993
25. Rogers HJ, Swaminathan H, Hambleton RK. Fundamentals of item response theory. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 1991
26. Cella D, Lloyd S, Wright B. Cross-cultural instrument equating: current research and future directions. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 707-15
27. Flaherty JA, Gaviria FM, Pathak D, et al. Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research. J Nerv Ment Dis 1988 May; 176 (5): 257-63
28. Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. 'Equivalence' and the translation and adaptation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. Qual Life Res 1997 Apr; 6 (3): 237-47
29. Van de Vijver F. Towards a theory of bias and equivalence. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial 1998; 42: 41-65
30. Zheng YP, Wei LA, Goa LG, et al. Applicability of the Chinese beck depression inventory. Compr Psychiatry 1988 Sep-Oct; 29 (5): 484-9
31. Willgerodt MA. Using focus groups to develop culturally relevant instruments. West J Nurs Res 2003 Nov; 25 (7): 798-814
32. Cull A, Sprangers M, Bjordal K, et al. EORTC Quality of Life Group translation procedure. 2nd ed. Brussels: EORTC Quality of Life Group, 2002
33. Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ. A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof 2005 Jun; 28 (2): 212-32
34. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47 (12): 1465-6
35. Sartorius N, Kuyken W. Translation of health status instruments. In: Orley J, Kuyken W, editors. Quality of life assessment: international perspectives. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 1994: 3-18
36. 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 Mar-Apr; 8 (2): 94-104
37. Hunt S. Cross-cultural issues in the use of quality of life measures in randomized controlled trials. In: Staquet M, Hays R, Fayers P, editors. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998: 51-68
38. Lenderking WR. Comments on the ISPOR Task Force report on translation and adaptation of outcomes measures: guidelines and the need for more research. Value Health 2005 Mar-Apr; 8 (2): 92-3
39. Swaine-Verdier A, Doward LC, Hagell P, et al. Adapting quality of life instruments. Value Health 2004 Sep-Oct; 7 Suppl. 1: S27-30