Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research article

Development of a brief, generic, modular resource-use measure (ModRUM): cognitive interviews with patients

Authors: Kirsty Garfield, Samantha Husbands, Joanna C. Thorn, Sian Noble, Will Hollingworth

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Self-report resource-use measures (RUMs) are often used to collect healthcare use data from participants in healthcare studies. However, RUMs are typically adapted from existing measures on a study-by-study basis, resulting in a lack of standardisation which limits comparability across studies. Psychometric testing of RUMs is rarely conducted. This paper reports on cognitive interviews with patients to test the content validity and acceptability of a new RUM (ModRUM). ModRUM is a brief, generic RUM with a core module on healthcare use and questions/modules to increase depth and breadth.

Methods

A purposeful sampling strategy with maximum variation was used to recruit patients from primary care to participate in “think-aloud” interviews with retrospective probing. Participants verbalised their thought processes as they completed ModRUM, which allowed errors (issues with completion) to be identified. The interviewer asked follow-up and probing questions to investigate errors, clarity and acceptability.
Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Research team members independently scored transcripts to identify errors in comprehension, recall, judgement and response. Members met to agree on final scores. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively using techniques of constant comparison, to identify common themes and ideas for improvement. Data collection and analysis were performed concurrently and in rounds.

Results

Twenty participants were interviewed between December 2019 and March 2020. Interviews were conducted in three rounds, with revisions made iteratively and in response to interview findings. Seven participants completed the core module and 13 completed the core module plus depth questions. Of 71 issues, 28 were in comprehension, 14 in retrieval, 10 in judgement, 18 in response and 1 uncategorised. Most issues (21 issues by 2 participants) were due to participants including family healthcare use. Other issues included using incorrect recall periods (5 issues) and overlooking questions leading to missing responses (9 issues). Common participant suggestions included highlighting important details and providing additional definition or examples for some terms. The length, content and layout were acceptable to most participants.

Conclusions

A generic RUM is needed to increase study comparability. RUM development requires thorough testing to demonstrate and enhance validity. Cognitive interviewing has demonstrated the acceptability and content validity of ModRUM.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
User-defined weights were as follows: agreement = 1, different errors scored = 0.5, struggle versus no error = 0.5, error versus struggle = 0.25, error versus no error = 0
 
Literature
2.
go back to reference Mokkink L, Terwee C, Knol D, Stratford P, Alonso J, Patrick D, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodology. 2010;10:22.CrossRef Mokkink L, Terwee C, Knol D, Stratford P, Alonso J, Patrick D, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodology. 2010;10:22.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Patrick D, Burke L, Gwaltney C, Kline Leidy N, Martin M, Molsen E, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013.CrossRefPubMed Patrick D, Burke L, Gwaltney C, Kline Leidy N, Martin M, Molsen E, 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. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2011.​06.​013.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Chernyak N, Ernsting C, Icks A. Pre-test of questions on health-related resource use and expenditure, using behaviour coding and cognitive interviewing techniques. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(303):1–8. Chernyak N, Ernsting C, Icks A. Pre-test of questions on health-related resource use and expenditure, using behaviour coding and cognitive interviewing techniques. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(303):1–8.
13.
go back to reference Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 2002. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 2002.
14.
go back to reference Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014. Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014.
15.
go back to reference Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research. 4th ed. California: Sage Publications; 2015. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research. 4th ed. California: Sage Publications; 2015.
16.
go back to reference Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing - a how to guide: Research Triangle Institute; 1999. Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing - a how to guide: Research Triangle Institute; 1999.
17.
go back to reference Tourangeau R. Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In: Jabine T, Straf M, Tanur J, Tourangeau R, editors. Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: building a bridge between disciplines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1984. p. 73–100. Tourangeau R. Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In: Jabine T, Straf M, Tanur J, Tourangeau R, editors. Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: building a bridge between disciplines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1984. p. 73–100.
18.
go back to reference Horwood J, Pollard B, Ayis S, McIlvenna T, Johnston M. Listening to patients: using verbal data in the validation of the Aberdeen measures of impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction (Ab-IAP). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11(182):1–13. Horwood J, Pollard B, Ayis S, McIlvenna T, Johnston M. Listening to patients: using verbal data in the validation of the Aberdeen measures of impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction (Ab-IAP). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11(182):1–13.
19.
go back to reference Gwet K. Handbook of inter-rater reliability: the definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics, LLC; 2014. Gwet K. Handbook of inter-rater reliability: the definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics, LLC; 2014.
21.
go back to reference Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.CrossRef Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; 1967. Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.
24.
go back to reference Beecham J, Knapp M. Measuring mental health needs. In: Thornicroft G, editor. Costing psychiatric interventions. 2nd ed. London: Gaskell; 2001. p. 200–24. Beecham J, Knapp M. Measuring mental health needs. In: Thornicroft G, editor. Costing psychiatric interventions. 2nd ed. London: Gaskell; 2001. p. 200–24.
25.
go back to reference Franklin M, Thorn J. Self-reported and routinely collected electronic healthcare resource-use data for trial-based economic evaluations: the current state of play in England and considerations for the future. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(8):1–13. Franklin M, Thorn J. Self-reported and routinely collected electronic healthcare resource-use data for trial-based economic evaluations: the current state of play in England and considerations for the future. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(8):1–13.
26.
go back to reference Cooper NJ, Mugford M, Symmons DP, Barrett EM, Scott DG. Development of resource-use and expenditure questionnaires for use in rheumatology research. J Rheumatol. 2003;30(11):2485–91.PubMed Cooper NJ, Mugford M, Symmons DP, Barrett EM, Scott DG. Development of resource-use and expenditure questionnaires for use in rheumatology research. J Rheumatol. 2003;30(11):2485–91.PubMed
27.
go back to reference Schweikert B, Hahmann H, Leidl R. Development and first assessment of a questionnaire for health care utilization and costs for cardiac patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:1–11.CrossRef Schweikert B, Hahmann H, Leidl R. Development and first assessment of a questionnaire for health care utilization and costs for cardiac patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:1–11.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Bradburn N, Sudman S, Wansink B. Asking questions: the definitive guide to questionnaire design - for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2004. Bradburn N, Sudman S, Wansink B. Asking questions: the definitive guide to questionnaire design - for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2004.
30.
go back to reference Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc.; 2012. Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc.; 2012.
Metadata
Title
Development of a brief, generic, modular resource-use measure (ModRUM): cognitive interviews with patients
Authors
Kirsty Garfield
Samantha Husbands
Joanna C. Thorn
Sian Noble
Will Hollingworth
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06364-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Health Services Research 1/2021 Go to the issue