Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Review

Interviewing to develop Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures for clinical research: eliciting patients’ experience

Authors: Anne Brédart, Alexia Marrel, Linda Abetz-Webb, Kathy Lasch, Catherine Acquadro

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures must provide evidence that their development followed a rigorous process for ensuring their content validity. To this end, the collection of data is performed through qualitative interviews that allow for the elicitation of in-depth spontaneous reports of the patients’ experiences with their condition and/or its treatment. This paper provides a review of qualitative research applied to PRO measure development. A clear definition of what is a qualitative research interview is given as well as information about the form and content of qualitative interviews required for developing PRO measures. Particular attention is paid to the description of interviewing approaches (e.g., semi-structured and in-depth interviews, individual vs. focus group interviews). Information about how to get prepared for a qualitative interview is provided with the description of how to develop discussion guides for exploratory or cognitive interviews. Interviewing patients to obtain knowledge regarding their illness experience requires interpersonal and communication skills to facilitate patients’ expression. Those skills are described in details, as well as the skills needed to facilitate focus groups and to interview children, adolescents and the elderly. Special attention is also given to quality assurance and interview training. The paper ends on ethical considerations since interviewing for the development of PROs is performed in a context of illness and vulnerability. Therefore, it is all the more important that, in addition to soliciting informed consent, respectful interactions be ensured throughout the interview process.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research: observational methods in health care settings. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 1995, 311(6998):182–184. 10.1136/bmj.311.6998.182CrossRef Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research: observational methods in health care settings. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 1995, 311(6998):182–184. 10.1136/bmj.311.6998.182CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, Leidy NK, Patrick DL, Petrie CD: Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the Use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health 2009, 12(8):1075–1083. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00603.xCrossRefPubMed Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, Leidy NK, Patrick DL, Petrie CD: Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the Use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health 2009, 12(8):1075–1083. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00603.xCrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Bottomley B, Jones D, Claassens L: Patient-reported outcomes: assessment and current perspectives of the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration and the reflection paper of the European Medicines Agency. Eur J Cancer 2009, 45(3):347–353. 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.09.032CrossRefPubMed Bottomley B, Jones D, Claassens L: Patient-reported outcomes: assessment and current perspectives of the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration and the reflection paper of the European Medicines Agency. Eur J Cancer 2009, 45(3):347–353. 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.09.032CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Marquis P, Caron M, Emery M-P, Scott JA, Arnould B, Acquadro C: The role of health-related quality of life data in the drug approval processes in the USA and Europe: a review of guidance documents and authorizations of medicinal products from 2006 to 2010. Pharmaceutical Medicine 2011, 25: 147–160. 10.1007/BF03256856CrossRef Marquis P, Caron M, Emery M-P, Scott JA, Arnould B, Acquadro C: The role of health-related quality of life data in the drug approval processes in the USA and Europe: a review of guidance documents and authorizations of medicinal products from 2006 to 2010. Pharmaceutical Medicine 2011, 25: 147–160. 10.1007/BF03256856CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, Scott JA, Rock EP, Dawisha S, O’Neill R, Kennedy DL: Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 2007, 10(Suppl 2):125–137.CrossRef Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, Scott JA, Rock EP, Dawisha S, O’Neill R, Kennedy DL: Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 2007, 10(Suppl 2):125–137.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pope C, Mays N: Qualitative Methods in Health Research Chapter 1. In Qualitative Research in Health Care. Edited by: Pope C, Mays N. Massachusetts: Balckwell Publishing ltd; 2006.CrossRef Pope C, Mays N: Qualitative Methods in Health Research Chapter 1. In Qualitative Research in Health Care. Edited by: Pope C, Mays N. Massachusetts: Balckwell Publishing ltd; 2006.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Flick U: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th edition. London: Sage; 2009. Flick U: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th edition. London: Sage; 2009.
8.
go back to reference Lasch K, Marquis P, Vigneux M, Abetz L, Arnould B, Bayliss M, Crawford B, Rosa K: PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res 2010, 19(8):1087–1096. 10.1007/s11136-010-9677-6PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Lasch K, Marquis P, Vigneux M, Abetz L, Arnould B, Bayliss M, Crawford B, Rosa K: PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res 2010, 19(8):1087–1096. 10.1007/s11136-010-9677-6PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Brod M, Tesler LE, Christensen TL: Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res 2009, 18: 1263–1278. 10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9CrossRefPubMed Brod M, Tesler LE, Christensen TL: Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res 2009, 18: 1263–1278. 10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Leidy NK, Vernon M: Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes: content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26(5):363–370. 10.2165/00019053-200826050-00002CrossRefPubMed Leidy NK, Vernon M: Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes: content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26(5):363–370. 10.2165/00019053-200826050-00002CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L: 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):967–977. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014CrossRefPubMed Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L: 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):967–977. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L: 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):978–988. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013CrossRefPubMed Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L: 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):978–988. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4: 79.CrossRef U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4: 79.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Starks S, Trinidad SB: Choose your method: a comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qual Health Res 2007, 17(10):1372–1380. 10.1177/1049732307307031CrossRefPubMed Starks S, Trinidad SB: Choose your method: a comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qual Health Res 2007, 17(10):1372–1380. 10.1177/1049732307307031CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Smith JA: Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. London: Sage; 2008. Smith JA: Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. London: Sage; 2008.
17.
go back to reference Hannes K, Lockwood C, Pearson A: A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2010, 20(12):1736–1743. 10.1177/1049732310378656CrossRefPubMed Hannes K, Lockwood C, Pearson A: A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2010, 20(12):1736–1743. 10.1177/1049732310378656CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Boutin G: L’entretien De Recherche Qualitatif. Quebec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 1997. Boutin G: L’entretien De Recherche Qualitatif. Quebec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 1997.
19.
go back to reference Charmaz K: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage; 2006. Charmaz K: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage; 2006.
21.
go back to reference DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF: The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 2006, 4: 314–321.CrossRef DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF: The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 2006, 4: 314–321.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Fontana A, Frey JH: The interview: from Neutral Stance to Political Involvement. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd edition. Edited by: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. London: Sage; 2005. Fontana A, Frey JH: The interview: from Neutral Stance to Political Involvement. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd edition. Edited by: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. London: Sage; 2005.
23.
go back to reference Britten N: Qualitative research on health communication: what can it contribute? Patient Educ Couns 2011, 82(3):384–388. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.021CrossRefPubMed Britten N: Qualitative research on health communication: what can it contribute? Patient Educ Couns 2011, 82(3):384–388. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.021CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Willis GB: Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. London: Sage; 2005. Willis GB: Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. London: Sage; 2005.
25.
go back to reference McNair R, Taft A, Hegarty K: Using reflexivity to enhance in-depth interviewing skills for the clinician researcher. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8: 73. 10.1186/1471-2288-8-73PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed McNair R, Taft A, Hegarty K: Using reflexivity to enhance in-depth interviewing skills for the clinician researcher. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8: 73. 10.1186/1471-2288-8-73PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Mathieson CM: Interviewing the Ill and the Healthy: Paradigm or Process? In Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and methods. Edited by: Murray M, Chamberlain K. London: Sage; 1999:117–132.CrossRef Mathieson CM: Interviewing the Ill and the Healthy: Paradigm or Process? In Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and methods. Edited by: Murray M, Chamberlain K. London: Sage; 1999:117–132.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Lehoux P, Poland B, Daudelin G: Focus group research and “the patient’s view”. Soc Sci Med 2006, 63(8):2091–2104. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.05.016CrossRefPubMed Lehoux P, Poland B, Daudelin G: Focus group research and “the patient’s view”. Soc Sci Med 2006, 63(8):2091–2104. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.05.016CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Carter S, Henderson L: Approaches to Qualitative Data Collection in Social Science. In Handbook of Health Research Methods: Investigation, Measurement and Analysis. Edited by: Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005:215–229. Carter S, Henderson L: Approaches to Qualitative Data Collection in Social Science. In Handbook of Health Research Methods: Investigation, Measurement and Analysis. Edited by: Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005:215–229.
29.
go back to reference Barbour RS: Making sense of focus groups. Med Educ 2005, 39(7):742–750. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.xCrossRefPubMed Barbour RS: Making sense of focus groups. Med Educ 2005, 39(7):742–750. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.xCrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Bowen GA: Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International journal of qualitative methods 2006, 5(3):1–9. Bowen GA: Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International journal of qualitative methods 2006, 5(3):1–9.
31.
go back to reference Picchietti DL, Arbuckle RA, Abetz L, Durmer JS, Ivanenko A, Owens JA, Croenlein J, Allen RP, Walters AS: Pediatric restless legs syndrome: analysis of symptom descriptions and drawings. J Child Neurol 2011, 26(11):1365–1376. 10.1177/0883073811405852CrossRefPubMed Picchietti DL, Arbuckle RA, Abetz L, Durmer JS, Ivanenko A, Owens JA, Croenlein J, Allen RP, Walters AS: Pediatric restless legs syndrome: analysis of symptom descriptions and drawings. J Child Neurol 2011, 26(11):1365–1376. 10.1177/0883073811405852CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Rothman ML, Beltran P, Cappelleri JC, Lipscomb J, Teschendorf B: Patient-reported outcomes: conceptual issues. Value Health 2007, 10(Suppl. 2):S66-S75.CrossRefPubMed Rothman ML, Beltran P, Cappelleri JC, Lipscomb J, Teschendorf B: Patient-reported outcomes: conceptual issues. Value Health 2007, 10(Suppl. 2):S66-S75.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Jobe JB: Cognitive psychology and self-reports: models and methods. Qual Life Res 2003, 12(3):219–227. 10.1023/A:1023279029852CrossRefPubMed Jobe JB: Cognitive psychology and self-reports: models and methods. Qual Life Res 2003, 12(3):219–227. 10.1023/A:1023279029852CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Collins D: Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 2003, 12(3):229–238. 10.1023/A:1023254226592CrossRefPubMed Collins D: Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 2003, 12(3):229–238. 10.1023/A:1023254226592CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Hughes KA: Comparing Pretesting Methods: Cognitive Interviews, Respondents Debriefing, and Behaviour Coding (U. S, Bureau of the Census Research Report Series #2004–02). Washington DC: Statistical Research Division; 2004. Hughes KA: Comparing Pretesting Methods: Cognitive Interviews, Respondents Debriefing, and Behaviour Coding (U. S, Bureau of the Census Research Report Series #2004–02). Washington DC: Statistical Research Division; 2004.
36.
go back to reference Presser S, Couper MP, Lessler JT, Martin E, Martin J, Rothgeb JM, Singer E: Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quaterly 2004, 68(1):109–130. 10.1093/poq/nfh008CrossRef Presser S, Couper MP, Lessler JT, Martin E, Martin J, Rothgeb JM, Singer E: Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quaterly 2004, 68(1):109–130. 10.1093/poq/nfh008CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Kirkevold M, Bergland A: The quality of qualitative data: Issues to consider when interviewing participants who have difficulties providing detailed accounts of their experiences. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being 2007, 2(2):68–75. 10.1080/17482620701259273CrossRef Kirkevold M, Bergland A: The quality of qualitative data: Issues to consider when interviewing participants who have difficulties providing detailed accounts of their experiences. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being 2007, 2(2):68–75. 10.1080/17482620701259273CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Walker W: Hermeneutic inquiry: insights into the process of interviewing. Nurse Res 2011, 18(2):19–27. 10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.19.c8281CrossRefPubMed Walker W: Hermeneutic inquiry: insights into the process of interviewing. Nurse Res 2011, 18(2):19–27. 10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.19.c8281CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Rogers CR: Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications, and Theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1965. Rogers CR: Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications, and Theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1965.
40.
go back to reference Lang F, Floyd MR, Beine KL: Clues to patients’ explanations and concerns about their illnesses. A call for active listening. Arch Fam Med 2000, 9(3):222–227. 10.1001/archfami.9.3.222CrossRefPubMed Lang F, Floyd MR, Beine KL: Clues to patients’ explanations and concerns about their illnesses. A call for active listening. Arch Fam Med 2000, 9(3):222–227. 10.1001/archfami.9.3.222CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Hermanowicz JC: The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed. Qualitative sociology 2002, 25(4):479–499. 10.1023/A:1021062932081CrossRef Hermanowicz JC: The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed. Qualitative sociology 2002, 25(4):479–499. 10.1023/A:1021062932081CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Roulston K, de Marrais K, Lewis JB: Learning to Interview in the Social Sciences. Qual Inq 2003, 9(4):643–668. 10.1177/1077800403252736CrossRef Roulston K, de Marrais K, Lewis JB: Learning to Interview in the Social Sciences. Qual Inq 2003, 9(4):643–668. 10.1177/1077800403252736CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Robertson R: Active listening: more than just paying attention. Aust Fam Physician 2005, 34(12):1053–1055.PubMed Robertson R: Active listening: more than just paying attention. Aust Fam Physician 2005, 34(12):1053–1055.PubMed
44.
go back to reference Morgan DL, Krueger RA: Focus Group Kit. Volume 1–6. London: Sage; 1997. Morgan DL, Krueger RA: Focus Group Kit. Volume 1–6. London: Sage; 1997.
45.
go back to reference Barbour RS, Kitzinger J: Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. London: Sage; 1999. Barbour RS, Kitzinger J: Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. London: Sage; 1999.
47.
go back to reference Kirk S: Methodological and ethical issues in conducting qualitative research with children and young people: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud 2007, 44(7):250–1260.CrossRef Kirk S: Methodological and ethical issues in conducting qualitative research with children and young people: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud 2007, 44(7):250–1260.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Eiser C, Twamley S: Talking to children about health and illness. In Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and methods. Edited by: Murray M, Chamberlain K. London: Sage; 1999:133–145.CrossRef Eiser C, Twamley S: Talking to children about health and illness. In Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and methods. Edited by: Murray M, Chamberlain K. London: Sage; 1999:133–145.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Kvale S, Brinkmann S: Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 2nd edition. London: Sage; 2009. Kvale S, Brinkmann S: Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 2nd edition. London: Sage; 2009.
50.
go back to reference Ogden J, Cornwell D: The role of topic, interviewee and question in predicting rich interview data in the field of health research. Sociol Health Illn 2010, 32(7):1059–1071. 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01272.xCrossRefPubMed Ogden J, Cornwell D: The role of topic, interviewee and question in predicting rich interview data in the field of health research. Sociol Health Illn 2010, 32(7):1059–1071. 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01272.xCrossRefPubMed
51.
go back to reference Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W: Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008, 337: a1035. 10.1136/bmj.a1035CrossRefPubMed Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W: Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008, 337: a1035. 10.1136/bmj.a1035CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Interviewing to develop Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures for clinical research: eliciting patients’ experience
Authors
Anne Brédart
Alexia Marrel
Linda Abetz-Webb
Kathy Lasch
Catherine Acquadro
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-15

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2014 Go to the issue