Quantifying clinical change: discrepancies between patients’ and providers’ perspectives

Rachel P. Dreyer, Philip G. Jones, Shelby Kutty, John A. Spertus

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Interpreting the clinical significance of changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critically important. The most commonly used approach is to anchor mean changes on PRO scores against a global assessment of change. Whether the assessor of global change should be patients or their physicians is unknown. We compared patients’ and physicians’ assessments of change over time to examine which was more aligned with patients’ changes in PRO measures. Methods: A total of 459 chronic heart failure patients aged >30 years were enrolled from 13 US centers. Data were obtained by medical record abstraction, physical assessments, and patient interviews at a baseline clinic visit and 6 weeks later. Health status was measured with the disease-specific Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), and both patients and physicians completed a validated 15-level global assessment of change, ranging from large deterioration to large improvement. Results: There was substantial variation between physicians/patients’ global assessment of clinical change (weighted kappa = 0.36, 95 % CI 0.28, 0.43). Overall, physician assessments were more strongly correlated with change on the KCCQ summary score than were patients’ assessments (physician R = 0.37, patient R = 0.29). Conclusion: There was substantial variation between patients’ and physicians’ global assessment of 6-week change in heart failure status. Physician assessments of the importance of clinical changes were more strongly associated with changes in all domains of patient-reported health status, as assessed by the KCCQ, and may provide a more consistent method for defining the clinical importance of changes in patients’ health status.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2213-2220
Number of pages8
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume25
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Physicians
Cardiomyopathies
Health Status
Heart Failure
Ambulatory Care
Medical Records
Interviews
Surveys and Questionnaires
Patient Reported Outcome Measures

Keywords

  • Clinical change
  • Heart failure
  • Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire
  • Patient-reported outcome measures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Quantifying clinical change : discrepancies between patients’ and providers’ perspectives. / Dreyer, Rachel P.; Jones, Philip G.; Kutty, Shelby; Spertus, John A.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 25, No. 9, 01.09.2016, p. 2213-2220.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dreyer, Rachel P. ; Jones, Philip G. ; Kutty, Shelby ; Spertus, John A. / Quantifying clinical change : discrepancies between patients’ and providers’ perspectives. In: Quality of Life Research. 2016 ; Vol. 25, No. 9. pp. 2213-2220.
@article{97c5b89fdedc420a9f959de77575462a,
title = "Quantifying clinical change: discrepancies between patients’ and providers’ perspectives",
abstract = "Purpose: Interpreting the clinical significance of changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critically important. The most commonly used approach is to anchor mean changes on PRO scores against a global assessment of change. Whether the assessor of global change should be patients or their physicians is unknown. We compared patients’ and physicians’ assessments of change over time to examine which was more aligned with patients’ changes in PRO measures. Methods: A total of 459 chronic heart failure patients aged >30 years were enrolled from 13 US centers. Data were obtained by medical record abstraction, physical assessments, and patient interviews at a baseline clinic visit and 6 weeks later. Health status was measured with the disease-specific Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), and both patients and physicians completed a validated 15-level global assessment of change, ranging from large deterioration to large improvement. Results: There was substantial variation between physicians/patients’ global assessment of clinical change (weighted kappa = 0.36, 95 {\%} CI 0.28, 0.43). Overall, physician assessments were more strongly correlated with change on the KCCQ summary score than were patients’ assessments (physician R = 0.37, patient R = 0.29). Conclusion: There was substantial variation between patients’ and physicians’ global assessment of 6-week change in heart failure status. Physician assessments of the importance of clinical changes were more strongly associated with changes in all domains of patient-reported health status, as assessed by the KCCQ, and may provide a more consistent method for defining the clinical importance of changes in patients’ health status.",
keywords = "Clinical change, Heart failure, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Patient-reported outcome measures",
author = "Dreyer, {Rachel P.} and Jones, {Philip G.} and Shelby Kutty and Spertus, {John A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-016-1267-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "2213--2220",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantifying clinical change

T2 - discrepancies between patients’ and providers’ perspectives

AU - Dreyer, Rachel P.

AU - Jones, Philip G.

AU - Kutty, Shelby

AU - Spertus, John A.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Purpose: Interpreting the clinical significance of changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critically important. The most commonly used approach is to anchor mean changes on PRO scores against a global assessment of change. Whether the assessor of global change should be patients or their physicians is unknown. We compared patients’ and physicians’ assessments of change over time to examine which was more aligned with patients’ changes in PRO measures. Methods: A total of 459 chronic heart failure patients aged >30 years were enrolled from 13 US centers. Data were obtained by medical record abstraction, physical assessments, and patient interviews at a baseline clinic visit and 6 weeks later. Health status was measured with the disease-specific Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), and both patients and physicians completed a validated 15-level global assessment of change, ranging from large deterioration to large improvement. Results: There was substantial variation between physicians/patients’ global assessment of clinical change (weighted kappa = 0.36, 95 % CI 0.28, 0.43). Overall, physician assessments were more strongly correlated with change on the KCCQ summary score than were patients’ assessments (physician R = 0.37, patient R = 0.29). Conclusion: There was substantial variation between patients’ and physicians’ global assessment of 6-week change in heart failure status. Physician assessments of the importance of clinical changes were more strongly associated with changes in all domains of patient-reported health status, as assessed by the KCCQ, and may provide a more consistent method for defining the clinical importance of changes in patients’ health status.

AB - Purpose: Interpreting the clinical significance of changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critically important. The most commonly used approach is to anchor mean changes on PRO scores against a global assessment of change. Whether the assessor of global change should be patients or their physicians is unknown. We compared patients’ and physicians’ assessments of change over time to examine which was more aligned with patients’ changes in PRO measures. Methods: A total of 459 chronic heart failure patients aged >30 years were enrolled from 13 US centers. Data were obtained by medical record abstraction, physical assessments, and patient interviews at a baseline clinic visit and 6 weeks later. Health status was measured with the disease-specific Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), and both patients and physicians completed a validated 15-level global assessment of change, ranging from large deterioration to large improvement. Results: There was substantial variation between physicians/patients’ global assessment of clinical change (weighted kappa = 0.36, 95 % CI 0.28, 0.43). Overall, physician assessments were more strongly correlated with change on the KCCQ summary score than were patients’ assessments (physician R = 0.37, patient R = 0.29). Conclusion: There was substantial variation between patients’ and physicians’ global assessment of 6-week change in heart failure status. Physician assessments of the importance of clinical changes were more strongly associated with changes in all domains of patient-reported health status, as assessed by the KCCQ, and may provide a more consistent method for defining the clinical importance of changes in patients’ health status.

KW - Clinical change

KW - Heart failure

KW - Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire

KW - Patient-reported outcome measures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961211380&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961211380&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-016-1267-9

DO - 10.1007/s11136-016-1267-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 26995561

AN - SCOPUS:84961211380

VL - 25

SP - 2213

EP - 2220

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 9

ER -