The Library
Development of a ‘universal-reporter’ outcome measure (UROM) for patient and healthcare professional completion : a mixed methods study demonstrating a novel concept for optimal questionnaire design
Tools
Tools
Tools
Macefield, Rhiannon C., Brookes, Sara T., Blazeby, Jane M. and Avery, Kerry N. L. (2019) Development of a ‘universal-reporter’ outcome measure (UROM) for patient and healthcare professional completion : a mixed methods study demonstrating a novel concept for optimal questionnaire design. BMJ Open, 9 (8). e029741. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029741 ISSN 2044-6055.
|
PDF
WRAP-development-‘universal-reporter’-outcome-measure-(UROM)-patient-healthcare-professional-completion-2019.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (342Kb) | Preview |
|
![[img]](https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png) |
PDF
WRAP-development-‘universal-reporter’-outcome-measure-(UROM)-patient-healthcare-professional-completion-2019.pdf - Accepted Version Embargoed item. Restricted access to Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (1087Kb) |
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029741
Abstract
Objectives: To describe the novel concept of, and methods for developing, a ‘universal-reporter’ outcome measure (UROM); a single questionnaire for completion by patients and/or healthcare professionals (HCPs) when views on the same subject are required.
Design: A mixed methods study with three phases—phase I: identification of relevant content domains from existing clinical tools, patient questionnaires and in-depth interviews with multistakeholders; phase II: item development using a novel approach that considered plain language in conjunction with medical terminology; and phase III: pretesting with multistakeholders using cognitive interviews.
Setting: A case study in surgical wound assessment undertaken in two UK hospital trusts and one university setting.
Participants: Patients who had recently undergone general abdominal surgery and healthcare professionals involved in post-surgical wound care.
Results: Phase I: In the example case study, 19 relevant content domains were identified from two clinical tools, two patient questionnaires and 19 multistakeholder interviews (nine patients, 10 HCPs). Phase II: Domains were operationalised into items and subitems (secondary components to collect further information, if relevant). The version after pretesting had 16 items, five of which included further subitems. Plain language in conjunction with medical terminology was applicable in nine (27%) items/subitems. Phase III: Pretesting with 28 patients and 14 HCPs found that the UROM was acceptable to both respondent groups. An unanticipated secondary finding of the study was that the combined use of plain language and medical terminology during questionnaire development may be a useful, novel technique for evaluating item interpretation and thereby identifying items with inadequate content validity.
Conclusion: UROMs are a novel approach to outcome assessment that are acceptable to both patients and HCPs. Combining plain language and medical terminology during item development is a recommended technique to improve accuracy of item interpretation and content validity during questionnaire design. More work is needed to further validate this novel approach and explore the application of UROMs to other settings.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > R Medicine (General) | |||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
|||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Medical care -- Evaluation -- Methodology, Clinical medicine -- Methodology, Outcome assessment (Medical care) | |||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | BMJ Open | |||||||||
| Publisher: | BMJ | |||||||||
| ISSN: | 2044-6055 | |||||||||
| Official Date: | 2019 | |||||||||
| Dates: |
|
|||||||||
| Volume: | 9 | |||||||||
| Number: | 8 | |||||||||
| Article Number: | e029741 | |||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029741 | |||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | |||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | |||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access (Creative Commons) | |||||||||
| Date of first compliant deposit: | 7 August 2019 | |||||||||
| Date of first compliant Open Access: | 12 August 2019 | |||||||||
| RIOXX Funder/Project Grant: |
|
|||||||||
| Contributors: |
|
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
