Key result
Patient-reported outcome measures in heart failure may be interpreted differently by men and women, posing a threat to validity known as differential item functioning.
Why the study?
Heart failure PRO measures assume men and women interpret quality of life questions identically, but differential item functioning poses a threat to valid subgroup comparisons and clinical trial outcomes.
Do PRO measures function the same way for all individuals with heart failure?
Do PRO measures function the same way for all individuals with heart failure?
Ensuring the validity of PRO measures across subgroups, such as men and women, is crucial for accurate interpretation of heart failure outcomes and addressing health inequities.
Women diagnosed with heart failure report worse quality of life than men on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. An inherent assumption of PRO measures in heart failure is that women and men interpret questions about quality of life the same way. If this is not the case, the risk then becomes that the PRO scores cannot be used for valid comparison or to combine outcomes by subgroups of the population. Inability to compare subgroups validly is a broad issue and has implications for clinical trials, and it also has specific and important implications for identifying and beginning to address health inequities. We describe this threat to validity (the psychometric term is differential item functioning), why it is so important in heart-failure outcomes, the research that has been conducted thus far in this area, the gaps that remain, and what we can do to avoid this threat to validity. PROs bring unique information to clinical decision making, and the validity of PRO measures is key to interpreting differences in heart failure outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coles et al. (2022) conducted a review in Heart failure. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures was evaluated. Patient-reported outcome measures in heart failure may be interpreted differently by men and women, posing a threat to validity known as differential item functioning.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: