Developing the draft descriptive system for the child amblyopia treatment questionnaire (CAT-Qol): a mixed methods study

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Jill Carlton¹ 

[1] Health Economics and Decision (HEDS), School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK

关键词: Amblyopia;    Questionnaire;    Paediatric;    Child;    Quality of life;    Patient reported outcomes;   

Others  :  822295
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-174

 received in 2013-09-24, accepted in 2013-10-09,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Amblyopia is a visual condition that occurs in childhood. Screening programmes exist within the United Kingdom (UK) to detect amblyopia, and once detected treatment is given.

Existing patient reported outcome (PRO) measures for amblyopia do not meet current recommendations for the methods adopted during their development, or the way in which the instruments are administered. The overall aim of this study was to produce a self-complete PRO instrument for amblyopia for children aged 4–7 years that uses children’s responses in the development phase. The study comprised a number of stages. This paper reports on the refinement of the descriptive system for the draft instrument (the Child Amblyopia Treatment Questionnaire, CAT-QoL) using qualitative and quantitative methods.

Methods

The study consisted of three components. Children were asked to read, and complete the draft questionnaire as independently as possible. They were then asked about the questionnaire, and its format, in a cognitive debriefing exercise. Observations were made as to the child’s ability to read the questionnaire, particular attention was made as to which individual words participants struggled to read. Children were also asked their opinion on the design layout of the questionnaire. Finally, some children were asked to complete a ranking task to help determine the order of the levels of the items as judged by the children. Mid-rank scoring and statistical level of agreement were calculated for the ranking exercise.

Results

Thirty-two (n=32) participants completed a draft questionnaire; each of these underwent a cognitive de-briefing interview. Twenty-two (n=22) children completed the ranking exercise. Ten children did not understand the concept of ranking. The results of the qualitative phase (cognitive de-briefing interview) were used to modify the wording of items and layout of the instrument. Results of the ranking exercise were used to inform the order of the response levels for the items.

Conclusion

Responses of young children can be used in the development of PRO instruments. They are able to help inform the content, wording, and format of an instrument, ensuring good content and face validity. The results have been used to further refine the CAT-QoL, however further research is required to assess the psychometric properties of the instrument.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Carlton; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knowl DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW: International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:737-745.
• [2]US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medicinal product development to support labelling claims. 2009. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf webcite
• [3]Carlton J, Kaltenthaler E: Amblyopia and quality of life: a systematic review. Eye 2011, 25:403-413.
• [4]Matza LS, Swansen AR, Flood EM, Secnik K, Kline LN: Assessment of health-related quality of life in children: a review of conceptual, methodological, and regulatory issues. Value Health 2004, 7:79-92.
• [5]Carlton J, Kaltenthaler E: Health-related quality of life measures (HRQoL) in patients with amblyopia and strabismus: a systematic review. Br J Ophthalmol 2011, 95:325-330.
• [6]Van de Graaf ES, van der Sterre GW, Polling JR, van Kempen H, Simonsz B, Simonsz HJ: Amblyopia and strabismus questionnaire: design and initial validation. Strabismus 2004, 12:181-193.
• [7]Felius J, Beauchamp GR, Stager DR Sr, Van de Graaf ES, Simonsz HJ: The amblyopia and strabismus questionnaire: English translation, validation and subscales. Am J Ophthalmol 2007, 143:305-310.
• [8]Cole SR, Beck RW, Moke PS, Celano MP, Drews CD, Repka MX, Holmes JM, Birch EE, Kraker RT, Kip KE: Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. The amblyopia treatment index. J AAPOS 2001, 5:250-254.
• [9]Holmes JM, Strauber S, Quinn GE, Cole SR, Felius J, Kulp M: Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Further validation of the amblyopia treatment index parental questionnaire. J AAPOS 2008, 12:581-584.
• [10]Felius J, Chandler DL, Holmes JM, Chu RH, Cole SR, Hill M, Huang K, Kulp MT, Lazar EL, Matta NS, Melia M, Wallace DK: Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Evaluating the burden of amblyopia treatment from the parent and child’s perspective. J AAPOS 2010, 14:389-395.
• [11]Carlton J: Clinicians’ perspectives of health related quality of life (HRQoL) implications of amblyopia: a qualitative study. Br Ir Orthopt J 2011, 8:18-23.
• [12]Carlton J: Identifying potential items for the Child Amblyopia Treatment Questionnaire. Optom Vis Sci 2013, 90:867-873.
• [13]Beatty PC, Willis GB: Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opin Q 2007, 71:287-311.
• [14]Argyrous G: Rank-order tests for two or more sample. In Statistics for Research with SPSS. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications; 2006:343-361.
• [15]Stevens K: Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure for health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res 2009, 18:1105-1113.
• [16]Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
• [17]Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group: The clinical profile of moderate amblyopia in children younger than 7 years. Arch Ophthalmol 2002, 120:281-287.
• [18]Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group: A randomized trial of atropine vs. patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2002, 120:268-278.
• [19]Repka MX, Beck RW, Holmes JM, Birch EE, Chandler DL, Cotter SA, Hertle RW, Kraker RT, Moke PS, Quinn GE, Scheiman MM: Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of patching regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2003, 121:603-611.
• [20]Repka MX, Wallace DK, Beck RW, Kraker RT, Birch EE, Cotter SA, Donahue S, Everett DF, Hertle RW, Holmes JM, Quinn GE, Scheiman MM, Weakley DR: Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Two-year follow-up of a 6-month randomized trial of atropine vs. patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2005, 123:149-157.
• [21]Scheiman MM, Hertle RW, Beck RW, Edwards AR, Birch E, Cotter SA, Crouch ER Jr, Cruz OA, Davitt BV, Donahue S, Holmes JM, Lyon DW, Repka MX, Sala NA, Silbert DI, Suh DW, Tamkins SM: Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Randomized trial of treatment of amblyopia in children aged 7 to 17 years. Arch Ophthalmol 2005, 123:437-447.
• [22]Rebok G, Riley A, Forrest C, Starfield B, Green B, Robertson J, Tambor E: Elementary school-aged children’s reports of their health: a cognitive interviewing study. Qual Life Res 2001, 10:59-70.
• [23]Juniper EF: Quality of life in adults and children with asthma and rhinitis. Allergy 1997, 52:971-977.
• [24]Riley AW, Forrest CB, Rebok GW, Starfield B, Green BF, Robertson JA, Friello P: The child report form of the CHIP-Child edition: reliability and validity. Med Care 2004, 42:221-231.
• [25]Varni JW, Seid M, Rode CA: The PedsQL: measurement model for the pediatric quality of life inventory. Med Care 1999, 37:126-139.
• [26]Creemens J, Eiser C, Blades M: Brief report: assessing the impact of rating scale type, types of items, and age on the measurement of school-age children’s self-reported quality of life. J Pediatr Psychol 2007, 32:132-138.