Introduction to the special section: “Methodologies and considerations for meaningful change”

Trigg, Andrew; Lenderking, William R.; Boehnke, Jan R.

doi:10.1007/s11136-023-03413-1

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These 43 colleagues reported 156 measures that they use, with three common justifications: they determined whether a change in the measure was clinically meaningful based on clinical experience (44%, 69/156), published research (38%, 59/156), and established guidelines (35%, 54/156). Respondents submitted over 100 unique measures; a few were submitted by multiple clinicians: ECOG performance status (8), weight (8), pain (7), hemoglobin (7) and blood pressure (6). For some of these measures, clinicians had very high agreement about what constituted a meaningful change.…”

Section: How Clinicians Use Change Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When does a score or change in score necessitate clinical action for a given patient? While methodologists still debate the exact answers to these questions [8], many PROMs offer published estimates of meaningful difference and change scores that can serve as reference values for careful clinical consideration [9,10 ]. However, these clinically meaningful change estimates should not be taken as immutable standards, even when the PROM is well-established as an excellent measure [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The challenge of using patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: how do we get there?

Cella,

Nolla,

Peipert

2024

J Patient Rep Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) become available to clinicians for routine clinical decision-making, many wonder how to define a meaningful change in a patient’s PROM score. Some PROMs have a specific threshold that indicates meaningful change, but since those numbers are based on population averages, they do not necessarily apply to the varying experiences of each individual patient. Rather than viewing this as a weakness of PROMs, it is worth considering how clinicians use other existing measures in clinical decision-making—and whether PROMs can be used similarly. Body An informal survey of 43 clinicians reported using measures such as weight, blood pressure, and blood chemistry to inform clinical decision-making. Although clinicians were very consistent with what constituted a meaningful change for some measures (e.g., ECOG performance status), other measures had considerable variability (e.g., weight), often informed by their specialization (for example, differing thresholds for meaningful weight change for adult primary care, pediatrics, and oncology). For interpreting change in measures, they relied on clinical experience (44%), published literature (38%), and established guidelines (35%). In open-response comments, many clarified that the results of any measure had to be taken in the context of each individual patient before making treatment decisions. In short, clinicians already apply individualized clinical judgment when interpreting score changes in existing clinical measures. As clinicians gain familiarity with PROMs, PROMs will likely be utilized in the same way. Conclusion Like other clinical measures from weight to blood chemistry, change in a PROM score is but one piece of a patient’s clinical story. Rather than relying on a hard-and-fast number for defining clinically meaningful change in a PROM score, providers should—and many already do—consider the full scope of a patient’s experience as they make treatment decisions.

show abstract

Section: How Clinicians Use Change Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The challenge of using patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: how do we get there?

Cella,

Nolla,

Peipert

2024

J Patient Rep Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Quality-of-life (QOL) researchers increasingly recognize that ILD provide insights into disorders that traditional methodologies cannot provide (Carlson et al, 2016;Schneider & Stone, 2016). For example, ILD can pinpoint when change happens by tracking patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as well-being or depression in daily life (Smit et al, 2023;Trigg et al, 2023), evaluate intervention effectiveness, and offer real-time feedback (Bringmann et al, 2021).…”

Section: Assessing and Accounting For Measurement In Intensive Longit...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After all, before drawing conclusions, we need to ensure that what we measure is accurate (i.e., represents the construct we intended to measure) and stable in meaning over time (e.g., ensuring that there are no response shifts, which are not rare in PROs repeatedly assessed using ESM or related methodologies; Mayo et al, 2017). Sufficient quality is especially important because of the high clinical relevance in health research (Bringmann et al, 2021;Trigg et al, 2023). Nevertheless, how to operationalize (psychological) constructs (i.e., how to quantify and use them as PROs) and how to assess and account for psychometric properties of these instruments in analyzing dynamics remains challenging for researchers working with ILD.…”

Section: Assessing and Accounting For Measurement In Intensive Longit...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing and Accounting for Measurement in Intensive Longitudinal Studies: Current Practices, Considerations, and Avenues for Improvement

Vogelsmeier¹,

Jongerling²,

Maassen³

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experience sampling methodology studies, in which participants complete self-report questionnaires multiple times a day over an extended period, are increasingly popular for studying dynamics in psychological constructs. To ensure the validity of the results obtained from analyzing the intensive longitudinal data (ILD), greater awareness and understanding of appropriate measurement practices are needed. We surveyed 42 researchers experienced with ILD on how they assess and account for measurement. Results showed that researchers typically use measures not validated specifically for ILD. Assessment of psychometric properties in the participants’ current studies and accounting for these properties when analyzing dynamics was even less common. Moreover, researchers often fail to assess measurement invariance; if tested, the required level of invariance is usually not achieved. However, open science practices appear reasonably well ingrained in ILD studies. We provide recommendations for best practices in ILD studies for creating a solid foundation for measuring and analyzing psychological constructs.

show abstract

“…Quality-of-life (QOL) researchers increasingly recognize that ILD provide insights into disorders that traditional methodologies cannot provide [5,35]. For example, ILD can pinpoint when change happens by tracking patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as well-being or depression in daily life [38,41], evaluate intervention effectiveness, and offer real-time feedback [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing and accounting for measurement in intensive longitudinal studies: current practices, considerations, and avenues for improvement

Vogelsmeier,

Jongerling,

Maassen

2024

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Intensive longitudinal studies, in which participants complete questionnaires multiple times a day over an extended period, are increasingly popular in the social sciences in general and quality-of-life research in particular. The intensive longitudinal methods allow for studying the dynamics of constructs (e.g., how much patient-reported outcomes vary across time). These methods promise higher ecological validity and lower recall bias than traditional methods that question participants only once, since the high frequency means that participants complete questionnaires in their everyday lives and do not have to retrospectively report about a large time interval. However, to ensure the validity of the results obtained from analyzing the intensive longitudinal data (ILD), greater awareness and understanding of appropriate measurement practices are needed. Method We surveyed 42 researchers experienced with ILD regarding their measurement practices and reasons for suboptimal practices. Results Results showed that researchers typically do not use measures validated specifically for ILD. Participants assessing the psychometric properties and invariance of measures in their current studies was even less common, as was accounting for these properties when analyzing dynamics. This was mainly because participants did not have the necessary knowledge to conduct these assessments or were unaware of their importance for drawing valid inferences. Open science practices, in contrast, appear reasonably well ingrained in ILD studies. Conclusion Measurement practices in ILD still need improvement in some key areas; we provide recommendations in order to create a solid foundation for measuring and analyzing psychological constructs.

show abstract

Introduction to the special section: “Methodologies and considerations for meaningful change”

Cited by 8 publications

References 52 publications

The challenge of using patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: how do we get there?

The challenge of using patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: how do we get there?

Assessing and Accounting for Measurement in Intensive Longitudinal Studies: Current Practices, Considerations, and Avenues for Improvement

Assessing and accounting for measurement in intensive longitudinal studies: current practices, considerations, and avenues for improvement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About