Exploring and Leveraging Known Resources to Support Pediatric Clinical Outcomes Assessment (COA) Development

Author(s): Meaghan Krohe*, Roger Lamoureux, Christine Banderas, Diane M. Turner-Bowker

Journal Name: Current Pediatric Reviews

Volume 16 , Issue 3 , 2020


Become EABM
Become Reviewer
Call for Editor

Abstract:

Background: Best practices for pediatric clinical outcomes assessment (COA) development rely on guidelines that have been developed for adult populations. While some useful resources are available to support pediatric COA development, this information has primarily come from within the measurement development field. To our knowledge, no research has explored the experiences of professionals from other disciplines who interact with children on a routine basis.

Aims and Objectives: The goal of this research was to explore the experiences of professionals from outside of the measurement science field, who work closely with children every day, in settings relevant to the context of concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews for pediatric COA development. The objectives were to 1) learn new ways to engage children in conversations regarding their health state; 2) understand how methods used in other disciplines can be used to improve the amount and quality of data emerging from pediatric qualitative interviews; and 3) generate a list of references to support pediatric COA development.

Methods: Individual, one-to-one expert advice meetings were conducted over the phone or in person and lasted approximately 60 minutes in duration. One child life specialist, one speech/language pathologist, and three reading specialists were consulted, given their role in evaluating children’s comprehensive abilities as well as their daily interactions with children. Two experienced COA researchers conducted the expert advice meetings using a semi-structured interview guide to provide a framework for discussion.

Results: These experts reported that factors such as interview setting, time taken to build rapport with the child, the child’s comfort level, presence or absence of caregiver during the interview, the child’s communication style, disease-related factors, and the child’s developmental age may influence the amount and type of information that is possible to elicit during qualitative interviews. Several of these factors are also important for cognitive debriefing interviews. In addition, experts provided input that may improve the debriefing procedure, such as having the child read the text aloud in small increments, re-read text, and highlight text that they do not understand. Best practice tips from the experts were consolidated into a set of references for use by those conducting pediatric COA development research.

Conclusion: Incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives into pediatric COA development may improve both the methods used to elicit information from children and the quality of the resulting questionnaires.

Keywords: Clinical outcomes assessment, patient reported outcomes, disease-related factors, debriefing procedure, practice tips.

[1]
DeMuro C, Clark M, Doward L, Evans E, Mordin M, Gnanasakthy A. Assessment of PRO label claims granted by the FDA as compared to the EMA (2006-2010). Value Health 2013; 16(8): 1150-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2293] [PMID: 24326168]
[2]
Gnanasakthy A, Mordin M, Clark M, DeMuro C, Fehnel S, Copley-Merriman C. A review of patient-reported outcome labels in the United States: 2006 to 2010. Value Health 2012; 15(3): 437-42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.032] [PMID: 22583453]
[3]
2006.
[4]
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1--eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health 2011; 14(8): 967-77.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014] [PMID: 22152165]
[5]
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2--assessing respondent understanding. Value Health 2011; 14(8): 978-88.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013] [PMID: 22152166]
[6]
1994.
[7]
2002.
[9]
2007.
[10]
Matza LS, Patrick DL, Riley AW, et al. Pediatric patient-reported outcome instruments for research to support medical product labeling: report of the ISPOR PRO good research practices for the assessment of children and adolescents task force. Value Health 2013; 16(4): 461-79.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.004] [PMID: 23796280]
[11]
Arbuckle R, Abetz-Webb L. “Not just little adults”: qualitative methods to support the development of pediatric patient-reported outcomes. Patient 2013; 6(3): 143-59.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-013-0022-3] [PMID: 23912695]
[12]
Bevans KB, Riley AW, Moon J, Forrest CB. Conceptual and methodological advances in child-reported outcomes measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010; 10(4): 385-96.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/erp.10.52] [PMID: 20715916]
[13]
Spaner RN, Brin M, Wrightsman JC. Child Development Guide. Buffalo, N.Y.: Center for Development of Human Services 2002.
[14]
2009.
[15]
Piaget J. Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1936.
[16]
Piaget J. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. London: Heinemann 1945.
[17]
Piaget J. Construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1957.
[18]
Wadsworth B. Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development: Foundations of constructivisim. Longman Publishing 2004.
[19]
Westman JC, Kansky EW, Erikson ME, Arthur B, Vroom AL. Parallel group psychotherapy with theparents of emotionally disturbed children 1963.
[20]
Erikson E. Youth: Change and challenge. Basic books 1963.
[21]
Erikson E. Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton 1968.
[22]
Papadopoulos E, Ed. Concepts & context: COA measurement strategies for a pediatric population. DIA Special Workshop: Advancing the Science of Study Endpoints: Pediatric COAs. Bethesda, MD. 2015.
[23]
Sachs AN, Avant D, Lee CS, Rodriguez W, Murphy MD. Pediatric information in drug product labeling. JAMA 2012; 307(18): 1914-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.3435] [PMID: 22570457]


Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

VOLUME: 16
ISSUE: 3
Year: 2020
Page: [232 - 240]
Pages: 9
DOI: 10.2174/1573396316666200331132259
Price: $65

Article Metrics

PDF: 13
HTML: 1