Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Formative preference-sensitive measures are needed in person-centered healthcare at both clinical and policy levels

Mette Kjer Kaltoft, Jesper Bo Nielsen, Jack Dowie

Abstract


Background: Most existing multi-critierial instruments measuring the person-as-patient’s experience (PREMs like ‘decision quality’) or outcome (e.g., PROMs like ‘quality of life’) are designed for use as inputs into group level decision and guidelines. Regrettably, they elicit only the ratings of the individual respondent. They therefore lack person-centered preference-sensitivity in that the measure for the individual patient does not also reflect that patient’s relative weighting of the multiple items/criteria/indicators that constitute it. Some instruments may use weightings that are preference-based, but the preferences are almost always the average ‘tariff’ derived in a separate study, not those of the individual concerned. The aggregated results from such instruments cannot reflect the heterogeneous and potentially changing preferences of the patient population and in this sense are not the appropriate ‘living’ metrics.

Personalisation: A preference-sensitive person-centered instrument reflects these weightings and is ‘dually-personalised’. Six possible degrees of personalisation are identified, varying in the ability of the individual respondent to customize the instrument. The appropriate level depends on the context and goals of the measurement. Higher levels of personalisation, such as those allowing the individual to generate the items, are unlikely to be of use in routine clinical practice, where dual and triple personalisation are the most practical. (In triple personalisation the respondent selects their criteria from a menu.)

Constructs: Whether single or some higher degree of personalisation is appropriate depends on the nature of the construct. Formative constructs producing indexes, such as most PROMs/PREMS, do not exist independently of the instrument claiming to measure them. The multiple components of these instruments, such as pain and mobility, ‘cause’ the construct and are not caused by it. Measures of formative constructs should always be (at least) dually-personalised. In contrast, reflective constructs (such as Appendicitis), exist independently of measurement and the scale measure they produce should never be dually-personalised; the component cues are properly integrated by belief/evidential coefficients, not value judgments.

Validation and Measurement models: Currently, most PROMs and PREMs are being treated as reflective indexes and are only singly-personalised. In breach of the COSMIN guidelines they are often ‘validated’ by criteria such as internal consistency and structural validity, using techniques such as Rasch or Item Response Theory, that are appropriate only for reflective scales. The output from applying a conjoint measurement model to a preference-sensitive construct (such as quality of life) is an appropriate input only in single-criterion decision-making, where the measured construct is the sole maximand. It is not appropriate in multi-criteria decision-making, because it has not involved the necessary separation of criterion weighting from option performance rating.

Conclusion: Person-centered care will advance only when it is accepted that the central constructs are formative indexes and measurement of them needs to be individually preference-sensitive, not just group preference-based and therefore at least dually-personalised.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Elwyn, G., Barr, P.J., Grande, S.W., Thompson, R., Walsh, T. & Ozanne, E.M. (2013). Developing CollaboRATE: A fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling 93 (1) 102-107.

Kriston, L., Scholl, I., Hölzel, L., Simon, D., Loh, A. & Härter, M. (2010). The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Education and Counseling 80 (1) 94-99.

Scholl, I., Kriston, L., Dirmaier, J., Buchholz, A. & Härter, M. (2012). Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire -physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Education and Counseling 88 (2) 284-290.

Bravo, P., Edwards, A., Barr, P.J., Scholl, I., Elwyn, G. & McAllister, M. (2015). Conceptualising patient empowerment: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research 15 (1) 252.

Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Wensing, M., Hood, K., Atwell, C. & Grol, R. (2003). Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Quality & Safety in Health Care 12 (2) 93-99.

Kienlin, S., Kristiansen, M., Ofstad, E., Liethmann, K., Geiger, F., Joranger, P., Tveiten, S. & Kasper, J. (2017). Validation of the Norwegian version of MAPPIN ’ SDM , an observation-based instrument to measure shared decision-making in clinical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling 100 (3) 534-541.

Scholl, I., Koelewijn-van Loon, M., Sepucha, K., Elwyn, G., Légaré, F., Härter, M. & Dirmaier, J. (2011). Measurement of shared decision making - a review of instruments. Zeitschrift Für Evidenz, Fortbildung Und Qualität Im Gesundheitswesen 105 (4) 313-324.

Zill, J.M., Scholl, I., Härter, M. & Dirmaier, J. (2015). Which Dimensions of Patient-Centeredness Matter? - Results of a Web-Based Expert Delphi Survey. PloS One 10 (11) e0141978.

Kaltoft, M., Cunich, M., Salkeld, G. & Dowie, J. (2014). Assessing decision quality in patient-centred care requires a preference-sensitive measure. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 19 (2) 110-117.

French, R., Cowan, F., Wellings, K. & Dowie, J. (2014). The development of a multi-criteria decision analysis aid to help with contraceptive choices: My Contraception Tool. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care 40 (2) 96-101.

Augustin, M., Radtke, M.A., Zschocke, I., Blome, C., Behechtnejad, J., Schäfer, I., Reusch, M., Mielke, V. & Rustenbach, S.J. (2009). The patient benefit index: a novel approach in patient-defined outcomes measurement for skin diseases. Archives of Dermatological Research 301 (8) 561-571.

Bradley, C., Todd, C., Gorton, T., Symonds, E., Martin, A. & Plowright, R. (1999). The development of an individualized questionnaire measure of perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life: the ADDQoL. Quality of Life Research 8 (1-2) 79-91.

Peach, G., Romaine, J., Holt, P.J.E., Thompson, M.M., Bradley, C. & Hinchliffe, R.J. (2016). Quality of life, symptoms and treatment satisfaction in patients with aortic aneurysm using new abdominal aortic aneurysm-specific patient-reported outcome measures. British Journal of Surgery 103 (8) 1012-1019.

Hickey, A.M., Bury, G., O’Boyle, C.A., Bradley, F., O’Kelly, F.D. & Shannon, W. (1996). A new short form individual quality of life measure (SEIQoL-DW): application in a cohort of individuals with HIV/AIDS. British Medical Journal 313 (7048) 29-33.

Martin, F., Camfield, L., Rodham, K., Kliempt, P. & Ruta, D. (2007). Twelve years’ experience with the Patient Generated Index (PGI) of quality of life: A graded structured review. Quality of Life Research 16 (4) 705-715.

Bjertnaes, O., Iversen, H.H., Holmboe, O., Danielsen, K. & Garratt, A. (2016). The Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire: reliability and validity of a one-page questionnaire following surveys in three patient populations. Patient Reported Outcome Measures 7, 55-62.

Konerding, U. (2011). Preference-based index measurement of health-related quality of life: when does it reflect only arbitrary settings of the researcher? Health Economics 20 (4) 471-783.

Hammond, K.R. (1998). Ecological Validity: Then and Now. Brunswik Retrieved from http://www.brunswik.org/notes/essay2.html

Mokkink, L.B., Terwee, C.B., Patrick, D.L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P.W., Knol, D.L., Bouter, L.M. & de Vet, H.C.W. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research 19 (4) 539-549.

Avila, M.L., Stinson, J., Kiss, A., Brandão, L.R., Uleryk, E. & Feldman, B.M. (2015). A critical review of scoring options for clinical measurement tools. BMC Research Notes 8, 612.

Coltman, T., Devinney, T.M., Midgley, D.F. & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research 61 (12) 1250-1262.

Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J.A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management 17 (4) 263-282.

Fayers, P.M. & Hand, D.J. (2002). Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: An example from quality of life. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society 165 (2) 233-261.

Konerding, U. (2016). Which kind of psychometrics is adequate for patient satisfaction questionnaires? Patient Preference and Adherence 10, 2083-2090.

Sepucha, K.R., Feibelmann, S., Abdu, W.A, Clay, C.F., Cosenza, C., Kearing, S., Levin, C.A. & Atlas, S.J. (2012). Psychometric evaluation of a decision quality instrument for treatment of lumbar herniated disc. Spine 37 (18) 1609-1616.

Sepucha, K.R., Levin, C.A., Uzogara, E.E., Barry, M.J., O’Connor, A.M. & Mulley, A.G. (2008). Developing instruments to measure the quality of decisions: Early results for a set of symptom-driven decisions. Patient Education and Counseling 73 (3) 504-510.

Krabbe, P.F.M. (2013). A generalized measurement model to quantify health: the multi-attribute preference response model. PloS One 8 (11) e79494.

Kaltoft, M., Nielsen, J., Salkeld, G. & Dowie, J. (2015). Can a Discrete Choice Experiment contribute to person-centred healthcare? European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 23 (4) 431-437.

Kaltoft, M., Nielsen, J., Salkeld, G. & Dowie, J. (2016). Preferences cannot be treated as epidemiological characteristics in person-centred care: a riposte. European Journal of Person Centered Healthcare 4 (1) 6-9.

Pedersen, L.B., Bech, M., Kløjgaard, M., Søgaard, R., Veldwijk, J., de Wit, A. G. & Lambooij, M.S. (2015). How discrete choice experiments contribute to person-centered healthcare . A commentary on Kaltoft et al. (2015): “Can a Discrete Choice Experiment contribute to person-centered healthcare?” European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 3 (4) 438-441.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v5i4.1398

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.