Patient-reported outcomes in coronary artery disease: the relationship between the standard, disease-specific set by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) and the generic health-related quality of life instrument 15D.
Coronary artery disease
Health status assessment
Health-related quality of life
Patient-reported outcomes
Journal
Health and quality of life outcomes
ISSN: 1477-7525
Titre abrégé: Health Qual Life Outcomes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Aug 2021
28 Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
19
04
2021
accepted:
12
08
2021
entrez:
29
8
2021
pubmed:
30
8
2021
medline:
16
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments measure health gains, including changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Previous studies have assessed the reliability and relationship of multiple HRQoL instruments in search of the optimal instrument for feasible measurement of PROs. Although the 15D instrument was shown to have the best sensitivity and construct validity among cardiac patients, it is unknown how well it captures relevant disease-specific information scores compared to instruments included in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard set. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the disease-specific PRO instruments and a generic HRQoL instrument capture disease related symptoms in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. Health status and HRQoL were assessed with the instruments included in the ICHOM standard set: Seattle Angina Questionnaire short-form (SAQ-7), Rose Dyspnea Scale (RDS), two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), and with the 15D HRQoL instrument at baseline and 1 year from the treatment in a university hospital setting. Spearman correlation and explanatory factor analysis were used to assess the relationship of baseline scores and 1-year change in scores of 297 patients. At baseline, the overall 15D score and SAQ-physical limitation (SAQ-PL), 15D "breathing" and SAQ-PL, as well as "breathing" and RDS showed moderately strong correlations. The factor interpreted to reflect "Breathing-related physical activity", based on high loadings of "breathing", RDS, SAQ-PL, "mobility", "vitality", and "usual activities", explained 19.2% of the total variance. Correlations between 1-year changes in scores were fair. The factor of "Breathing-related physical activity", with significant loading of RDS, SAQ-PL, "breathing, "usual activities", "vitality", "sexual activity", "mobility", and disease-specific quality of life explained 20.5% of the total variance in 1-year change in scores. The correlation of angina frequency measured by SAQ-7 and the 15D instrument was poor. The 15D detects dyspnea and depression similarly to RDS and PHQ-2 but not angina similarly to the SAQ-7. This may call for supplementing the 15D instrument with a disease-specific instrument when studying CAD patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments measure health gains, including changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Previous studies have assessed the reliability and relationship of multiple HRQoL instruments in search of the optimal instrument for feasible measurement of PROs. Although the 15D instrument was shown to have the best sensitivity and construct validity among cardiac patients, it is unknown how well it captures relevant disease-specific information scores compared to instruments included in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard set. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the disease-specific PRO instruments and a generic HRQoL instrument capture disease related symptoms in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.
METHODS
METHODS
Health status and HRQoL were assessed with the instruments included in the ICHOM standard set: Seattle Angina Questionnaire short-form (SAQ-7), Rose Dyspnea Scale (RDS), two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), and with the 15D HRQoL instrument at baseline and 1 year from the treatment in a university hospital setting. Spearman correlation and explanatory factor analysis were used to assess the relationship of baseline scores and 1-year change in scores of 297 patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
At baseline, the overall 15D score and SAQ-physical limitation (SAQ-PL), 15D "breathing" and SAQ-PL, as well as "breathing" and RDS showed moderately strong correlations. The factor interpreted to reflect "Breathing-related physical activity", based on high loadings of "breathing", RDS, SAQ-PL, "mobility", "vitality", and "usual activities", explained 19.2% of the total variance. Correlations between 1-year changes in scores were fair. The factor of "Breathing-related physical activity", with significant loading of RDS, SAQ-PL, "breathing, "usual activities", "vitality", "sexual activity", "mobility", and disease-specific quality of life explained 20.5% of the total variance in 1-year change in scores. The correlation of angina frequency measured by SAQ-7 and the 15D instrument was poor.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The 15D detects dyspnea and depression similarly to RDS and PHQ-2 but not angina similarly to the SAQ-7. This may call for supplementing the 15D instrument with a disease-specific instrument when studying CAD patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34454528
doi: 10.1186/s12955-021-01841-6
pii: 10.1186/s12955-021-01841-6
pmc: PMC8401180
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
206Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Am Heart J. 2000 Jul;140(1):105-10
pubmed: 10874270
Singapore Med J. 2003 Dec;44(12):614-9
pubmed: 14770254
Qual Life Res. 1995 Aug;4(4):293-307
pubmed: 7550178
Pain. 2017 Aug;158(8):1577-1585
pubmed: 28715354
Heart. 2006 Jan;92(1):62-7
pubmed: 15797936
J Psychosom Res. 2005 Feb;58(2):163-71
pubmed: 15820844
J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Dec;23(12):2014-7
pubmed: 18815842
Clin Res Cardiol. 2013 Aug;102(8):571-81
pubmed: 23636227
Qual Life Res. 2015 Mar;24(3):599-606
pubmed: 25145637
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011 Jan 16;9:4
pubmed: 21235818
Control Clin Trials. 2004 Feb;25(1):31-52
pubmed: 14980747
Eur Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;37:28-34
pubmed: 27442980
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013 Dec;61(8):676-81
pubmed: 23344765
Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2015 Dec;14(4):139-45
pubmed: 26569653
Intensive Care Med. 2010 Dec;36(12):2090-3
pubmed: 20689933
Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):358-70
pubmed: 11491195
Heart. 2020 Mar;106(6):441-446
pubmed: 31857352
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Sep;7(5):640-7
pubmed: 25185249
J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 May 19;4(5):
pubmed: 25991011
Med Decis Making. 2016 Feb;36(2):147-59
pubmed: 26582319
Qual Life Res. 2008 Apr;17(3):485-95
pubmed: 18288590
Qual Life Res. 2006 Oct;15(8):1403-14
pubmed: 16960751
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2018 Apr 1;4(2):113-119
pubmed: 29045602
Int J Cardiol. 2020 Feb 1;300:268-275
pubmed: 31748184
Heart Lung. 2008 Jul-Aug;37(4):286-95
pubmed: 18620104
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Nov;7(6):844-50
pubmed: 25249560
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2016 Jul 1;2(3):193-200
pubmed: 29342253
Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):328-36
pubmed: 11491191
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Sep 1;167(5):2294-9
pubmed: 22748284
Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1284-92
pubmed: 14583691
Pain. 2016 Oct;157(10):2269-2276
pubmed: 27355183