Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus

Objective The study aimed to reach a consensus on the most relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the corresponding measures (PROMs), and measurement frequency during severe asthma patient follow-up. Methods Two Delphi rounds were conducted. The questionnaire was developed based on a systematic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Martínez Moragón, Eva, Antepara Ercoreca, Ignacio, Muñoz García, María, Casas Maldonado, Francisco, Calvín Lamas, Marta, Chiner Vives, Eusebi, Merino Bohórquez, Vicente, Sánchez Cuellar, Silvia
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2023
País:España
Institución:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
Repositorio:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
OAI Identifier:oai:idus.us.es:11441/156686
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/11441/156686
https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2023.2297372
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Severe asthma
patient-centered care
patient-reported outcomes
patient-reported outcome
measures
id ES_0ab773ffd2e43bb48b3d2d7708a5bea1
oai_identifier_str oai:idus.us.es:11441/156686
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensusMartínez Moragón, EvaAntepara Ercoreca, IgnacioMuñoz García, MaríaCasas Maldonado, FranciscoCalvín Lamas, MartaChiner Vives, EusebiMerino Bohórquez, VicenteSánchez Cuellar, SilviaSevere asthmapatient-centered carepatient-reported outcomespatient-reported outcomemeasuresObjective The study aimed to reach a consensus on the most relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the corresponding measures (PROMs), and measurement frequency during severe asthma patient follow-up. Methods Two Delphi rounds were conducted. The questionnaire was developed based on a systematic literature review, a focus group with patients, and a nominal group with experts. It assessed PROs’ relevance and the appropriateness (A) and feasibility (F) of PROMs using a Likert scale (1=totally agree; 9=totally disagree). The consensus was established when ≥75% of participants agreed (1-3) or disagreed (7-9). Results Sixty-three professionals (25 hospital pharmacists, 14 allergists, 13 pulmonologists, and 11 nurses) and 5 patients answered the Delphi questionnaire. A consensus was reached on all PROs regarding their relevance. Experts agreed on the use of ACT (A:95.24%; F:95.24%), mini AQLQ (A:93.65; F:79.37%), mMRC dyspnea scale (A:85.71%; F:85.71%), TAI (A:92.06%; F:85.71%), MMAS (A:75.40%; F:82%), and the dispensing register (A:96.83%; F:92.06%). Also considered suitable were: SNOT-22 (A:90.48%; F:73.80%), PSQI (A:82.54; F:63.90%), HADS (A:82.54; F:64%), WPAI (A:77.78%; F:49.20%), TSQM-9 (A:79.37; F:70.50%) and knowledge of asthma questionnaire (A:77%; F:68.80%); however, their use in clinical practice was considered unfeasible. Panelists also agreed on the appropriateness of EQ-5D, which was finally included despite being considered unfeasible (A: 84.13%; F:67.20%) in clinical practice. Agreement was reached on using ACT, TAI, mMRC, and a dispensing register every three months; mini-AQLQ and MMAS every six months; and EQ-5D every twelve months. Conclusion This consensus paves the way toward patient-centered care, promoting the development of strategies supporting routine assessment of PROs in severe asthma management.Taylor and Francis GroupFarmacologíaGlaxoSmithKline GSK2023info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/11441/156686https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2023.2297372reponame:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevillainstname:Universidad de Sevilla (US)InglésJournal of Asthma, 20023.https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2023.2297372info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:idus.us.es:11441/1566862026-06-17T12:51:07Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus
title Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus
spellingShingle Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus
Martínez Moragón, Eva
Severe asthma
patient-centered care
patient-reported outcomes
patient-reported outcome
measures
title_short Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus
title_full Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus
title_fullStr Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus
title_full_unstemmed Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus
title_sort Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Martínez Moragón, Eva
Antepara Ercoreca, Ignacio
Muñoz García, María
Casas Maldonado, Francisco
Calvín Lamas, Marta
Chiner Vives, Eusebi
Merino Bohórquez, Vicente
Sánchez Cuellar, Silvia
author Martínez Moragón, Eva
author_facet Martínez Moragón, Eva
Antepara Ercoreca, Ignacio
Muñoz García, María
Casas Maldonado, Francisco
Calvín Lamas, Marta
Chiner Vives, Eusebi
Merino Bohórquez, Vicente
Sánchez Cuellar, Silvia
author_role author
author2 Antepara Ercoreca, Ignacio
Muñoz García, María
Casas Maldonado, Francisco
Calvín Lamas, Marta
Chiner Vives, Eusebi
Merino Bohórquez, Vicente
Sánchez Cuellar, Silvia
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Farmacología
GlaxoSmithKline GSK
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Severe asthma
patient-centered care
patient-reported outcomes
patient-reported outcome
measures
topic Severe asthma
patient-centered care
patient-reported outcomes
patient-reported outcome
measures
description Objective The study aimed to reach a consensus on the most relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the corresponding measures (PROMs), and measurement frequency during severe asthma patient follow-up. Methods Two Delphi rounds were conducted. The questionnaire was developed based on a systematic literature review, a focus group with patients, and a nominal group with experts. It assessed PROs’ relevance and the appropriateness (A) and feasibility (F) of PROMs using a Likert scale (1=totally agree; 9=totally disagree). The consensus was established when ≥75% of participants agreed (1-3) or disagreed (7-9). Results Sixty-three professionals (25 hospital pharmacists, 14 allergists, 13 pulmonologists, and 11 nurses) and 5 patients answered the Delphi questionnaire. A consensus was reached on all PROs regarding their relevance. Experts agreed on the use of ACT (A:95.24%; F:95.24%), mini AQLQ (A:93.65; F:79.37%), mMRC dyspnea scale (A:85.71%; F:85.71%), TAI (A:92.06%; F:85.71%), MMAS (A:75.40%; F:82%), and the dispensing register (A:96.83%; F:92.06%). Also considered suitable were: SNOT-22 (A:90.48%; F:73.80%), PSQI (A:82.54; F:63.90%), HADS (A:82.54; F:64%), WPAI (A:77.78%; F:49.20%), TSQM-9 (A:79.37; F:70.50%) and knowledge of asthma questionnaire (A:77%; F:68.80%); however, their use in clinical practice was considered unfeasible. Panelists also agreed on the appropriateness of EQ-5D, which was finally included despite being considered unfeasible (A: 84.13%; F:67.20%) in clinical practice. Agreement was reached on using ACT, TAI, mMRC, and a dispensing register every three months; mini-AQLQ and MMAS every six months; and EQ-5D every twelve months. Conclusion This consensus paves the way toward patient-centered care, promoting the development of strategies supporting routine assessment of PROs in severe asthma management.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/11441/156686
https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2023.2297372
url https://hdl.handle.net/11441/156686
https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2023.2297372
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Asthma, 20023.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2023.2297372
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Taylor and Francis Group
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Taylor and Francis Group
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
instname:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
instname_str Universidad de Sevilla (US)
reponame_str idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
collection idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869403179662180352
score 15.81155

Similares en LA Referencia