Recommendations on the Selection, Development, and Modification of Performance Outcome Assessments: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

被引:7
|
作者
Edgar, Chris J. [1 ]
Bush, Elizabeth [2 ]
Adams, Heather R. [3 ]
Ballinger, Rachel [4 ]
Byrom, Bill [5 ]
Campbell, Michelle [6 ]
Eremenco, Sonya [7 ]
McDougall, Fiona [8 ]
Papadopoulos, Elektra [9 ]
Slagle, Ashley F. [10 ]
Coons, Stephen Joel [11 ]
机构
[1] Cogstate Ltd, London, England
[2] Janssen Pharmaceut Co Johnson & Johnson, Endpoints & Measurement Strategy, Raritan, NJ USA
[3] Univ Rochester, Rochester, NY USA
[4] ICON, Patient Ctr Outcomes, St Albans, England
[5] Signant Hlth, Sandwich, England
[6] FDA, Off Neurosci, Silver Spring, MD USA
[7] Crit Path Inst, PRO Consortium, Tucson, AZ USA
[8] Genentech Inc, South San Francisco, CA USA
[9] AbbVie, Patient Experience Data & Strategy Immunol & Onco, N Chicago, IL USA
[10] Aspen Consulting LLC, Sci & Regulatory Consulting, Steamboat Springs, CO USA
[11] Crit Path Inst, Tucson, AZ USA
关键词
patient focused drug development; PerfO assessment; performance outcome assessment; task performance; CONTENT VALIDITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jval.2023.05.003
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
In evaluating the clinical benefit of new therapeutic interventions, it is critical that the treatment outcomes assessed reflect aspects of health that are clinically important and meaningful to patients. Performance outcome (PerfO) assessments are measurements based on standardized tasks actively undertaken by a patient that reflect physical, cognitive, sensory, and other functional skills that bring meaning to people's lives. PerfO assessments can have substantial value as drug develop-ment tools when the concepts of interest being measured best suit task performance and in cases where patients may be limited in their capacity for self-report. In their development, selection, and modification, including the evaluation and documentation of validity, reliability, usability, and interpretability, the good practice recommendations established for other clinical outcome assessment types should continue to be followed, with concept elicitation as a critical foundation. In addition, the importance of standardization, and the need to ensure feasibility and safety, as well as their utility in patient groups, such as pediatric populations, or those with cognitive and psychiatric challenges, may enhance the need for struc-tured pilot evaluations, additional cognitive interviewing, and evaluation of quantitative data, such as that which would support concept confirmation or provide ecological evidence and other forms of construct evidence within a unitary approach to validity. The opportunity for PerfO assessments to inform key areas of clinical benefit is substantial and establishing good practices in their selection or development, validation, and implementation, as well as how they reflect meaningful aspects of health is critical to ensuring high standards and in furthering patient-focused drug development.
引用
收藏
页码:959 / 967
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Machine Learning Methods in Health Economics and Outcomes Research-The PALISADE Checklist: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force
    Padula, William, V
    Kreif, Noemi
    Vanness, David J.
    Adamson, Blythe
    Rueda, Juan-David
    Felizzi, Federico
    Jonsson, Pall
    IJzerman, Maarten J.
    Butte, Atul
    Crown, William
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2022, 25 (07) : 1063 - 1080
  • [42] The View of a Model user on the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Task Force Report
    Berger, Marc L.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2012, 15 (06) : 794 - 795
  • [43] Modeling using Discrete Event Simulation: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-4
    Karnon, Jonathan
    Stahl, James
    Brennan, Alan
    Caro, J. Jaime
    Mar, Javier
    Moller, Jorgen
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2012, 15 (06) : 821 - 827
  • [44] Mapping to Estimate Health-State Utility from Non-Preference-Based Outcome Measures: An ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report
    Wailoo, Allan J.
    Hernandez-Alava, Monica
    Manca, Andrea
    Mejia, Aurelio
    Ray, Joshua
    Crawford, Bruce
    Botteman, Marc
    Busschbach, Jan
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2017, 20 (01) : 18 - 27
  • [45] Modeling Using Discrete Event Simulation: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-4
    Karnon, Jonathan
    Stahl, James
    Brennan, Alan
    Caro, J. Jaime
    Mar, Javier
    Moller, Jorgen
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2012, 32 (05) : 701 - 711
  • [46] Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: The ISPOR RCT-CEA task force report
    Ramsey, S
    Willke, R
    Briggs, A
    Brown, R
    Buxton, M
    Chawla, A
    Cook, J
    Glick, H
    Liljas, B
    Petitti, D
    Reed, S
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2005, 8 (05) : 521 - 533
  • [47] A Roadmap for Increasing the Usefulness and Impact of Patient-Preference Studies in Decision Making in Health: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force
    Bridges, John F. P.
    de Bekker-Grob, Esther W.
    Hauber, Brett
    Heidenreich, Sebastian
    Janssen, Ellen
    Bast, Alice
    Hanmer, Janel
    Danyliv, Andriy
    Low, Eric
    Bouvy, Jacoline C.
    Marshall, Deborah A.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (02) : 153 - 162
  • [48] Dynamic Transmission Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-5
    Pitman, Richard
    Fisman, David
    Zaric, Gregory S.
    Postma, Maarten
    Kretzschmar, Mirjam
    Edmunds, John
    Brisson, Marc
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2012, 32 (05) : 712 - 721
  • [49] Review: Report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force
    Goettsch, Wim G.
    Enzing, Joost
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2014, 17 (01) : 1 - 2
  • [50] Application of Constrained Optimization Methods in Health Services Research: Report 2 of the ISPOR Optimization Methods Emerging Good Practices Task Force
    Crown, William
    Buyukkaramikli, Nasuh
    Sir, Mustafa Y.
    Thokala, Praveen
    Morton, Alec
    Marshall, Deborah A.
    Tosh, Jonathan C.
    Ijzerman, Maarten J.
    Padula, William V.
    Pasupathy, Kalyan S.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2018, 21 (09) : 1019 - 1028