Development and validation of a set of patient reported outcome measures to assess effectiveness of asthma prophylaxis

2Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: In the local setting, asthma control is assessed by symptoms and signs elicited by clinicians because of the limited availability of spirometry. Hence, we intended to develop a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) with more holistic interpretation that could also serve as a tool to measure the asthma control in resource limited settings. Therefore, this study was carried out in Northern Sri Lanka to develop and validate the Asthma Control PROM (AC-PROM) Tamil to measure the effectiveness of asthma prophylaxis based on symptoms, exacerbation and limitation of activity which could also serve as an easy measure of asthma control to the provider. Methods: The AC-PROM Tamil was developed in 3 steps: item generation, item reduction and psychometric evaluation. Items were generated through thematic analysis from focus group discussions among patients with asthma. Items were converted to an interviewer administered questionnaire in Tamil in the format of 5-point Likert scale. Item reduction was done by two rounds of online Delphi surveys among 10 experts and an exploratory factor analysis among 200 patients with asthma. The face and content validity were assessed by a panel of experts during Delphi survey and patients during the pre-test of the tool. Criterion validity of the tool was assessed against the forced expiratory volume in one second of 187 patients with asthma. The cut-off value to assess the asthma control was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve. Reliability was verified by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Results: From thematic analysis of focus group discussions 10 items were generated. One item was removed during Delphi survey. Exploratory factor analysis indicated removal of another item with 8 items categorised into two factors. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factors 1 and 2 were 0.821 and 0.903 respectively, indicating good reliability. Observations made by experts and responses made by patients were incorporated to improve the clarity and relevance of the items. Criterion validity was demonstrated by significant correlation between the AC-PROM Tamil and forced expiratory volume in one second (r = 0.66, p = 0.001). The cut-off value of the AC-PROM Tamil to detect asthma control was 28.5 with 79% (95% CI 71.3–86.9) sensitivity and 71% (95% CI 61.9–79.6) specificity. The AC-PROM Tamil showed moderate accuracy (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.796; 95% CI 0.73–0.86). Response rate of the AC-PROM Tamil was 100% and time taken to complete was 3–4 min. Conclusion: The AC-PROM Tamil is a simple, feasible and reasonably accurate tool to assesses the effectiveness of asthma prophylaxis, particularly in resource limited settings.

References Powered by Scopus

Standardisation of spirometry

13027Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Sample size in factor analysis

3502Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Standardization of spirometry 2019 update an official American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society technical statement

2414Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Effectiveness of inhaled therapies in asthma among adults in Northern Sri Lanka, a low-income and middle-income country: A prospective observational study

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Effect of Pharmacist Interventions on Asthma Control and Pulmonary Functions Parameters of Iraqi Asthmatic Patients: A comparative Study

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Guruparan, Y., Navaratinaraja, T. S., Selvaratnam, G., Gunawardena, N., & Sri Ranganathan, S. (2021). Development and validation of a set of patient reported outcome measures to assess effectiveness of asthma prophylaxis. BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-021-01665-6

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Researcher 4

67%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

17%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 1

17%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 5

71%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

14%

Social Sciences 1

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free