期刊文献+

Advising on Preferred Reporting Items for Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument Development:the PRIPROID 被引量:1

Advising on Preferred Reporting Items for Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument Development:the PRIPROID
原文传递
导出
摘要 Objective: The reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instrument development is vital for both researchers and clinicians to determine its validity, thus, we propose the Preferred Reporting Items for PRO Instrument Development (PRIPROID) to improve the quality of reports. Methods: Abiding by the guidance published by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network, we had performed 6 steps for items development: identified the need for a guideline, performed a literature review, obtained funding for the guideline initiative, identified participants, conducted a Delphi exercise and generated a list of PRIPROID items for consideration at the face-to-face meeting. Results: Twenty three items subheadings under 7 topics were included: title and structured abstract, rationale, objectives, intention, eligibility criteria, conceptual framework, items generation, response options, scoring, times, administrative modes,burden assessment, properties assessment, statistical methods, participants, main results, and additional analysis, summary of evidence, limitations, clinical attentions, and conclusions, item pools or final form, and funding. Conclusions: The PRIPROID contains many elements of the PRO research, and this assists researchers to report their results more accurately and to a certain degree use this instrument to evaluate the quality of the research methods. Objective: The reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instrument development is vital for both researchers and clinicians to determine its validity, thus, we propose the Preferred Reporting Items for PRO Instrument Development (PRIPROID) to improve the quality of reports. Methods: Abiding by the guidance published by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network, we had performed 6 steps for items development: identified the need for a guideline, performed a literature review, obtained funding for the guideline initiative, identified participants, conducted a Delphi exercise and generated a list of PRIPROID items for consideration at the face-to-face meeting. Results: Twenty three items subheadings under 7 topics were included: title and structured abstract, rationale, objectives, intention, eligibility criteria, conceptual framework, items generation, response options, scoring, times, administrative modes,burden assessment, properties assessment, statistical methods, participants, main results, and additional analysis, summary of evidence, limitations, clinical attentions, and conclusions, item pools or final form, and funding. Conclusions: The PRIPROID contains many elements of the PRO research, and this assists researchers to report their results more accurately and to a certain degree use this instrument to evaluate the quality of the research methods.
出处 《Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine》 SCIE CAS 2013年第3期172-181,共10页 中国结合医学杂志(英文版)
基金 Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(No.81073163) Eleventh Five-Year National Key Technology Research and Development Program(No.2006BA104A12)
关键词 patient reported outcome quality of life MEASUREMENT QUESTIONNAIRE instrument development patient reported outcome quality of life measurement questionnaire instrument development
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献13

  • 1Toru Oga,Koichi Nishimura,Mitsuhiro Tsukino,Susumu Sato,Takashi Hajiro,Michiaki Mishima.A comparison of the responsiveness of different generic health status measures in patients with asthma[J].Quality of Life Research.2003(5)
  • 2.Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a Quality of Life assessment instrument (WHOQOL)[J].Quality of Life Research.1993(2)
  • 3Ware JE Jr,Sherbourne CD.The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection[].Medical Care.1992
  • 4McHorney CA,Ware JE Jr,Raczek AE.The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): Ⅱ.Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs[].Medical Care.1993
  • 5The WHOQOL Group.The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties[].Social Science and Medicine.1998
  • 6The WHOQOL Group.Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment[].Psychological Medicine.1998
  • 7Rector TS,Kubo SH,Cohn JN.Patients’ self-assessment of their congestive heart failure. Part 2: Content, reliability and validity of a new measure, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire[].Heart Failure.1987
  • 8Leung Kwok-fai,Liu Feng-bin,Zhao Li,et al.Development andvalidation of the Chinese Quality of life instrument[].Health and Quality of life outcomes.2005
  • 9Wright,JG,Young,NL.A comparison of different indices of responsiveness[].Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.1997
  • 10L. Zhao,F.B. Liu,K.F. Leung.Reliability and validity of the Chinese Quality of Life Instrument[].Chin J Clin Rehabil (Chin).2006

共引文献2

同被引文献5

引证文献1

二级引证文献8

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部