Comparison of generic and disease‐specific measures in their ability to detect differences in pressure ulcer clinical groups
ABSTRACT Patient‐reported outcomes can be included as end points in pressure ulcer (PU) intervention trials to provide information to inform decision‐making and improve the lives of patients. However, the challenge for researchers and clinicians is identifying and choosing an appropriate instrument...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Wound repair and regeneration 2019-07, Vol.27 (4), p.396-405 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 405 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 396 |
| container_title | Wound repair and regeneration |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Rutherford, Claudia Campbell, Rachel Brown, Julia M. Smith, Isabelle Costa, Daniel S. J. McGinnis, Elizabeth Wilson, Lyn Gilberts, Rachael Brown, Sarah Coleman, Susanne Collier, Howard Nixon, Jane E. |
| description | ABSTRACT
Patient‐reported outcomes can be included as end points in pressure ulcer (PU) intervention trials to provide information to inform decision‐making and improve the lives of patients. However, the challenge for researchers and clinicians is identifying and choosing an appropriate instrument for each particular application that suits their research questions and clinical context. To provide researchers and clinicians with the information needed to inform choice of patient‐reported outcome measures, we compared a generic and disease‐specific measures’ ability to discriminate between clinical groups known to differ, and determined their responsiveness to change. We performed analyses on a subset of patients recruited to the PRESSURE 2 trial that completed the pressure ulcer quality of life instrument—prevention version (PU‐QOL‐P) and Short Form 12 Questionnaire (SF12) measures at baseline and 30‐day posttreatment. Known‐group validity and responsiveness‐to‐change analyses were conducted. The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both measures at baseline. Known‐group validity revealed that some PU‐QOL‐P symptoms and function scales differentiated between people with category 2 PUs and those without PUs. A less meaningful pattern of results was observed for the SF12 scales, suggesting that the PU‐QOL‐P is more sensitive to differences between PU and non‐PU populations. Responsiveness analysis revealed that the PU‐QOL‐P was more responsive in detecting disease severity than the SF12. The PU‐QOL‐P provides a standardized method for assessing PU‐specific symptoms and functioning outcomes and is suitable for quantifying the benefits of PU interventions from the patient's perspective. Generic measures are useful for group comparisons of global quality of life domains. Choice of measure for each particular application should be determined by the purpose of the measurement and the information required. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/wrr.12716 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2191355605</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2191355605</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3256-5bc3b2dd67758d66d2c1e5c9a9b6355c28b1df9610cf4c97401e8c034478c98c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKxTAQhoMo3he-gGSpi2rSNkm7lIM3OCCIoruSTqYa6c2k5XA24iP4jD6JOVbdOZsZfr75Fj8hB5yd8DCnC-dOeKy4XCPbXMRplCrxuB5uJlXE81htkR3vXxhjQuTZJtlKWCYzqZJt8jbrml4767uWdhV9whadBapbQ431qD1-vn_4HsFWIW5CMDr01LZ0eEbrqC5tbYclHTpqcEAYwltVocMWJqwP-OqHjjWgo1Db1oKu6ZPrxt7vkY1K1x73f_Yuub84v5tdRfOby-vZ2TyCJBYyEiUkZWyMVEpkRkoTA0cBuc5LmQgBcVZyU-WSM6hSyFXKOGbAkjRVGeQZJLvkaPL2rnsd0Q9FYz1gXesWu9EXMc95EEkmAno8oeA67x1WRe9so92y4KxY1V2EuovvugN7-KMdywbNH_nbbwBOJ2Bha1z-byoebm8n5ReXD40V</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2191355605</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of generic and disease‐specific measures in their ability to detect differences in pressure ulcer clinical groups</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Rutherford, Claudia ; Campbell, Rachel ; Brown, Julia M. ; Smith, Isabelle ; Costa, Daniel S. J. ; McGinnis, Elizabeth ; Wilson, Lyn ; Gilberts, Rachael ; Brown, Sarah ; Coleman, Susanne ; Collier, Howard ; Nixon, Jane E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rutherford, Claudia ; Campbell, Rachel ; Brown, Julia M. ; Smith, Isabelle ; Costa, Daniel S. J. ; McGinnis, Elizabeth ; Wilson, Lyn ; Gilberts, Rachael ; Brown, Sarah ; Coleman, Susanne ; Collier, Howard ; Nixon, Jane E.</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT
Patient‐reported outcomes can be included as end points in pressure ulcer (PU) intervention trials to provide information to inform decision‐making and improve the lives of patients. However, the challenge for researchers and clinicians is identifying and choosing an appropriate instrument for each particular application that suits their research questions and clinical context. To provide researchers and clinicians with the information needed to inform choice of patient‐reported outcome measures, we compared a generic and disease‐specific measures’ ability to discriminate between clinical groups known to differ, and determined their responsiveness to change. We performed analyses on a subset of patients recruited to the PRESSURE 2 trial that completed the pressure ulcer quality of life instrument—prevention version (PU‐QOL‐P) and Short Form 12 Questionnaire (SF12) measures at baseline and 30‐day posttreatment. Known‐group validity and responsiveness‐to‐change analyses were conducted. The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both measures at baseline. Known‐group validity revealed that some PU‐QOL‐P symptoms and function scales differentiated between people with category 2 PUs and those without PUs. A less meaningful pattern of results was observed for the SF12 scales, suggesting that the PU‐QOL‐P is more sensitive to differences between PU and non‐PU populations. Responsiveness analysis revealed that the PU‐QOL‐P was more responsive in detecting disease severity than the SF12. The PU‐QOL‐P provides a standardized method for assessing PU‐specific symptoms and functioning outcomes and is suitable for quantifying the benefits of PU interventions from the patient's perspective. Generic measures are useful for group comparisons of global quality of life domains. Choice of measure for each particular application should be determined by the purpose of the measurement and the information required.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1067-1927</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1524-475X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12716</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30868673</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Outcome Assessment, Health Care ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures ; Pressure Ulcer - classification ; Pressure Ulcer - prevention & control ; Reproducibility of Results ; Skin Care ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Wound Healing - physiology</subject><ispartof>Wound repair and regeneration, 2019-07, Vol.27 (4), p.396-405</ispartof><rights>2019 by the Wound Healing Society</rights><rights>2019 by the Wound Healing Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3256-5bc3b2dd67758d66d2c1e5c9a9b6355c28b1df9610cf4c97401e8c034478c98c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3256-5bc3b2dd67758d66d2c1e5c9a9b6355c28b1df9610cf4c97401e8c034478c98c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4637-4572</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fwrr.12716$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fwrr.12716$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30868673$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rutherford, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campbell, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Julia M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Isabelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costa, Daniel S. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGinnis, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Lyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilberts, Rachael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collier, Howard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nixon, Jane E.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of generic and disease‐specific measures in their ability to detect differences in pressure ulcer clinical groups</title><title>Wound repair and regeneration</title><addtitle>Wound Repair Regen</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT
Patient‐reported outcomes can be included as end points in pressure ulcer (PU) intervention trials to provide information to inform decision‐making and improve the lives of patients. However, the challenge for researchers and clinicians is identifying and choosing an appropriate instrument for each particular application that suits their research questions and clinical context. To provide researchers and clinicians with the information needed to inform choice of patient‐reported outcome measures, we compared a generic and disease‐specific measures’ ability to discriminate between clinical groups known to differ, and determined their responsiveness to change. We performed analyses on a subset of patients recruited to the PRESSURE 2 trial that completed the pressure ulcer quality of life instrument—prevention version (PU‐QOL‐P) and Short Form 12 Questionnaire (SF12) measures at baseline and 30‐day posttreatment. Known‐group validity and responsiveness‐to‐change analyses were conducted. The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both measures at baseline. Known‐group validity revealed that some PU‐QOL‐P symptoms and function scales differentiated between people with category 2 PUs and those without PUs. A less meaningful pattern of results was observed for the SF12 scales, suggesting that the PU‐QOL‐P is more sensitive to differences between PU and non‐PU populations. Responsiveness analysis revealed that the PU‐QOL‐P was more responsive in detecting disease severity than the SF12. The PU‐QOL‐P provides a standardized method for assessing PU‐specific symptoms and functioning outcomes and is suitable for quantifying the benefits of PU interventions from the patient's perspective. Generic measures are useful for group comparisons of global quality of life domains. Choice of measure for each particular application should be determined by the purpose of the measurement and the information required.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment, Health Care</subject><subject>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</subject><subject>Pressure Ulcer - classification</subject><subject>Pressure Ulcer - prevention & control</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Skin Care</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Wound Healing - physiology</subject><issn>1067-1927</issn><issn>1524-475X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtKxTAQhoMo3he-gGSpi2rSNkm7lIM3OCCIoruSTqYa6c2k5XA24iP4jD6JOVbdOZsZfr75Fj8hB5yd8DCnC-dOeKy4XCPbXMRplCrxuB5uJlXE81htkR3vXxhjQuTZJtlKWCYzqZJt8jbrml4767uWdhV9whadBapbQ431qD1-vn_4HsFWIW5CMDr01LZ0eEbrqC5tbYclHTpqcEAYwltVocMWJqwP-OqHjjWgo1Db1oKu6ZPrxt7vkY1K1x73f_Yuub84v5tdRfOby-vZ2TyCJBYyEiUkZWyMVEpkRkoTA0cBuc5LmQgBcVZyU-WSM6hSyFXKOGbAkjRVGeQZJLvkaPL2rnsd0Q9FYz1gXesWu9EXMc95EEkmAno8oeA67x1WRe9so92y4KxY1V2EuovvugN7-KMdywbNH_nbbwBOJ2Bha1z-byoebm8n5ReXD40V</recordid><startdate>201907</startdate><enddate>201907</enddate><creator>Rutherford, Claudia</creator><creator>Campbell, Rachel</creator><creator>Brown, Julia M.</creator><creator>Smith, Isabelle</creator><creator>Costa, Daniel S. J.</creator><creator>McGinnis, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Wilson, Lyn</creator><creator>Gilberts, Rachael</creator><creator>Brown, Sarah</creator><creator>Coleman, Susanne</creator><creator>Collier, Howard</creator><creator>Nixon, Jane E.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4637-4572</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201907</creationdate><title>Comparison of generic and disease‐specific measures in their ability to detect differences in pressure ulcer clinical groups</title><author>Rutherford, Claudia ; Campbell, Rachel ; Brown, Julia M. ; Smith, Isabelle ; Costa, Daniel S. J. ; McGinnis, Elizabeth ; Wilson, Lyn ; Gilberts, Rachael ; Brown, Sarah ; Coleman, Susanne ; Collier, Howard ; Nixon, Jane E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3256-5bc3b2dd67758d66d2c1e5c9a9b6355c28b1df9610cf4c97401e8c034478c98c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment, Health Care</topic><topic>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</topic><topic>Pressure Ulcer - classification</topic><topic>Pressure Ulcer - prevention & control</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Skin Care</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Wound Healing - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rutherford, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campbell, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Julia M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Isabelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costa, Daniel S. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGinnis, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Lyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilberts, Rachael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collier, Howard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nixon, Jane E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Wound repair and regeneration</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rutherford, Claudia</au><au>Campbell, Rachel</au><au>Brown, Julia M.</au><au>Smith, Isabelle</au><au>Costa, Daniel S. J.</au><au>McGinnis, Elizabeth</au><au>Wilson, Lyn</au><au>Gilberts, Rachael</au><au>Brown, Sarah</au><au>Coleman, Susanne</au><au>Collier, Howard</au><au>Nixon, Jane E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of generic and disease‐specific measures in their ability to detect differences in pressure ulcer clinical groups</atitle><jtitle>Wound repair and regeneration</jtitle><addtitle>Wound Repair Regen</addtitle><date>2019-07</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>396</spage><epage>405</epage><pages>396-405</pages><issn>1067-1927</issn><eissn>1524-475X</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT
Patient‐reported outcomes can be included as end points in pressure ulcer (PU) intervention trials to provide information to inform decision‐making and improve the lives of patients. However, the challenge for researchers and clinicians is identifying and choosing an appropriate instrument for each particular application that suits their research questions and clinical context. To provide researchers and clinicians with the information needed to inform choice of patient‐reported outcome measures, we compared a generic and disease‐specific measures’ ability to discriminate between clinical groups known to differ, and determined their responsiveness to change. We performed analyses on a subset of patients recruited to the PRESSURE 2 trial that completed the pressure ulcer quality of life instrument—prevention version (PU‐QOL‐P) and Short Form 12 Questionnaire (SF12) measures at baseline and 30‐day posttreatment. Known‐group validity and responsiveness‐to‐change analyses were conducted. The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both measures at baseline. Known‐group validity revealed that some PU‐QOL‐P symptoms and function scales differentiated between people with category 2 PUs and those without PUs. A less meaningful pattern of results was observed for the SF12 scales, suggesting that the PU‐QOL‐P is more sensitive to differences between PU and non‐PU populations. Responsiveness analysis revealed that the PU‐QOL‐P was more responsive in detecting disease severity than the SF12. The PU‐QOL‐P provides a standardized method for assessing PU‐specific symptoms and functioning outcomes and is suitable for quantifying the benefits of PU interventions from the patient's perspective. Generic measures are useful for group comparisons of global quality of life domains. Choice of measure for each particular application should be determined by the purpose of the measurement and the information required.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>30868673</pmid><doi>10.1111/wrr.12716</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4637-4572</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1067-1927 |
| ispartof | Wound repair and regeneration, 2019-07, Vol.27 (4), p.396-405 |
| issn | 1067-1927 1524-475X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2191355605 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Female Humans Male Middle Aged Outcome Assessment, Health Care Patient Reported Outcome Measures Pressure Ulcer - classification Pressure Ulcer - prevention & control Reproducibility of Results Skin Care Surveys and Questionnaires Wound Healing - physiology |
| title | Comparison of generic and disease‐specific measures in their ability to detect differences in pressure ulcer clinical groups |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T03%3A43%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20generic%20and%20disease%E2%80%90specific%20measures%20in%20their%20ability%20to%20detect%20differences%20in%20pressure%20ulcer%20clinical%20groups&rft.jtitle=Wound%20repair%20and%20regeneration&rft.au=Rutherford,%20Claudia&rft.date=2019-07&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=396&rft.epage=405&rft.pages=396-405&rft.issn=1067-1927&rft.eissn=1524-475X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/wrr.12716&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2191355605%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2191355605&rft_id=info:pmid/30868673&rfr_iscdi=true |