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

ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsTwo Delphi rounds were conducted. The questionnaire was developed based on a systematic lit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Martínez-Moragón E, Antepara Ercoreca I, Muñoz García M, Casas Maldonado F, Calvín Lamas M, Chiner Vives E, Crespo Diz C, Díaz-Pérez D, Eguiluz Gracia I, García Gil S, González-Pérez R, Habernau Mena A, Hermida Valverde T, Jornet Montaña S, López-Carrasco V, Martínez López I, Merino-Bohórquez V, Moreno-Ancillo Á, Mínguez Cabeza AC, Monte-Boquet E, Revuelta-Herrero JL, Sánchez-Cuellar S
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2024
País:España
Institución:Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana (FISABIO)
Repositorio:r-FISABIO. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica
OAI Identifier:oai:fisabio.fundanetsuite.com:p16266
Acceso en línea:https://fisabio.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/16266
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Severe asthma
patient-centered care
patient-reported outcomes
patient-reported outcome measures
Descripción
Sumario:ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsTwo 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).ResultsSixty-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.ConclusionThis consensus paves the way toward patient-centered care, promoting the development of strategies supporting routine assessment of PROs in severe asthma management.

Similares en LA Referencia