Psychometric evaluation of an experience sampling method-based patient-reported outcome measure in functional dyspepsia.
2021
BACKGROUND Due to important biases, conventional end-of-day and end-of-week assessment methods of gastrointestinal symptoms in functional dyspepsia (FD) are considered suboptimal. Real-time symptom assessment based on the experience sampling method (ESM) could be a more accurate measurement method. This study aimed to evaluate validity and reliability of an ESM-based patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for symptom assessment in FD. METHODS Thirty-five patients with FD (25 female, mean age 44.7 years) completed the ESM-based PROM (a maximum of 10 random moments per day) and an end-of-day symptom diary for 7 consecutive days. On day 7, end-of-week questionnaires were completed including the Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI) and Patient Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index (PAGI-SYM). KEY RESULTS Experience sampling method and corresponding end-of-day scores for gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly associated (ICCs range 0.770-0.917). However, end-of-day scores were significantly higher (Δ0.329-1.031) than mean ESM scores (p < 0.05). Comparing ESM with NDI and PAGI-SYM scores, correlations were weaker (Pearson's r range 0.467-0.846). Cronbach's α coefficient was good for upper gastrointestinal symptoms (α = 0.842). First half-week and second half-week scores showed very good consistency (ICCs range 0.913-0.975). CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES Good validity and reliability of a novel ESM-based PROM for assessing gastrointestinal symptoms in FD patients was demonstrated. Moreover, this novel PROM allows to evaluate individual symptom patterns and can evaluate interactions between symptoms and environmental/contextual factors. ESM has the potential to increase patients' disease insight, provide tools for self-management, and improve shared decision making. Hence, this novel tool may aid in the transition toward personalized health care for FD patients.
Keywords:
- Correction
- Source
- Cite
- Save
- Machine Reading By IdeaReader
50
References
2
Citations
NaN
KQI