9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic Review of the Effect of a One-Day Versus Seven-Day Recall Duration on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

      review-article
      1 , , 1 , 2
      The Patient
      Springer International Publishing

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There is ongoing uncertainty around the most suitable recall period for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

          Method

          This systematic review integrates quantitative and qualitative literature across health, economics, and psychology to explore the effect of a one-day (or ‘24-h’) versus seven-day (or ‘one week’) recall period. The following databases were searched from database inception to 30 November 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, and Sociological Abstracts. Studies were included that compared a one-day (or ‘24-h’) versus seven-day (or weekly) recall period condition on patient-reported scores for PROM and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) instrument scores in adult populations (aged 18 and above) or combined paediatric and adult populations with a majority of respondents aged over 18 years. Studies were excluded if they assessed health behaviours only, used ecological momentary assessment to derive an index of daily recall, or incorporated clinician reports of patient symptoms. We extracted results relevant to six domains with generic health relevance: physical functioning, pain, cognition, psychosocial wellbeing, sleep-related symptoms and aggregated disease-specific signs and symptoms. Quantitative studies compared weekly recall scores with the mean or maximum score over the last seven days or with the same-day recall score.

          Results

          Overall, across the 24 quantitative studies identified, 158 unique results were identified. Symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and HRQoL lower when assessed with a weekly recall than a one-day recall. A narrative synthesis of 33 qualitative studies integrated patient perspectives on the suitability of a one-day versus seven-day recall period for assessing health state or quality of life. Participants had mixed preferences, some noted the accuracy of recall for the one-day period but others preferred the seven-day recall for conditions characterised by high symptom variability, or where PROMs concepts required integration of infrequent experiences or functioning over time.

          Conclusion

          This review identified a clear trend toward higher symptom scores and worse quality of life being reported for a seven-day compared to a one-day recall. The review also identified anomalies in this pattern for some wellbeing items and a need for further research on positively framed items. A better understanding of the impact of using different recall periods within PROMs and HRQoL instruments will help contextualise future comparisons between instruments.

          Plain English Summary

          Questionnaires ask patients about their health over different time periods (e.g., “what were your symptoms like over the last week?” versus “what were your symptoms like today?”). Studies find that people may report their symptoms as more severe when they are asked to think about their symptoms over the last week compared to the last day. Understanding how different time periods influence patient responses will allow researchers to compare and develop new questionnaires and may help clinicians to choose the best questionnaire to understand their patient’s condition. We conducted a systematic literature review on studies which had looked at the impact of using different recall periods on patient responses. We found 24 studies that compared patient scores from questionnaires asking their health “over the last day” compared to “over the last week”. Overall, symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and health as poorer when they were reported over the last week compared to the last day on average. We also found 33 studies that asked patients to describe which recall period they preferred. Patients had mixed preferences with more preferring a seven-day recall where symptoms and health impacts varied a lot.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-022-00611-w.

          Related collections

          Most cited references79

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research.

          Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is a widely used reliability index in test-retest, intrarater, and interrater reliability analyses. This article introduces the basic concept of ICC in the content of reliability analysis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

            The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study

              Background Content validity is the most important measurement property of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the most challenging to assess. Our aims were to: (1) develop standards for evaluating the quality of PROM development; (2) update the original COSMIN standards for assessing the quality of content validity studies of PROMs; (3) develop criteria for what constitutes good content validity of PROMs, and (4) develop a rating system for summarizing the evidence on a PROM’s content validity and grading the quality of the evidence in systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods An online 4-round Delphi study was performed among 159 experts from 21 countries. Panelists rated the degree to which they (dis)agreed to proposed standards, criteria, and rating issues on 5-point rating scales (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’), and provided arguments for their ratings. Results Discussion focused on sample size requirements, recording and field notes, transcribing cognitive interviews, and data coding. After four rounds, the required 67% consensus was reached on all standards, criteria, and rating issues. After pilot-testing, the steering committee made some final changes. Ten criteria for good content validity were defined regarding item relevance, appropriateness of response options and recall period, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the PROM. Discussion The consensus-based COSMIN methodology for content validity is more detailed, standardized, and transparent than earlier published guidelines, including the previous COSMIN standards. This methodology can contribute to the selection and use of high-quality PROMs in research and clinical practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Tessa.Peasgood@unimelb.edu.au
                Journal
                Patient
                Patient
                The Patient
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1178-1653
                1178-1661
                14 February 2023
                14 February 2023
                2023
                : 16
                : 3
                : 201-221
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.1008.9, ISNI 0000 0001 2179 088X, Center for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, , The University of Melbourne, ; Parkville, VIC Australia
                [2 ]GRID grid.11835.3e, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9262, School of Health and Related Research, , The University of Sheffield, ; Sheffield, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8024-7801
                Article
                611
                10.1007/s40271-022-00611-w
                10121527
                36786931
                ecd53bcf-bc50-45b6-a767-40761adfd8dc
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 9 November 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100006419, EuroQol Research Foundation;
                Award ID: EQ Project 224-2020RA
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

                Comments

                Comment on this article