Submitted:
28 August 2023
Posted:
29 August 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- -
- To create a Polish adaptation of the PREM-C9.
- -
- To determine the psychometric characteristics of the PREM-C9 questionnaire used in Polish conditions.
- -
- To provide knowledge regarding the characteristics and the role of the PREM-C9 in non-English speaking countries, allowing for cross-cultural comparisons and determining further possibilities of using PREM-C9 and generalizing the results obtained to other populations.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The adaptation procedure
- Forward translation of the PREM-C9 into Polish by a professional bilingual translator with Polish as a native language.
- Reviewing the translated version of the PREM-C9 by the team, including pneumonologists and the research team members. This stage did not provide any significant changes in the Polish version of the questionnaire.
- Back translation made a professional bilingual translator with English as a native language.
- Comparison of the back-translated version with the original text. This stage did not provide any significant changes; only minor revisions were introduced.
- Evaluation of the comprehensibility of the translated version in a group of 20 healthy volunteers who assessed whether each of the questions was understandable to them.
- The first use of the PREM-C9 questionnaire in the group of 42 COPD patients was to validate the tool and test its psychometric features. Material was collected from patients by a trained interviewer, or patients answered by themselves by filling out a paper version of the questionnaires. The questionnaire was made available both in paper form and digital version. The use of the electronic version of the questionnaire was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted from the need to limit interpersonal contacts.
2.1. Participants
- -
- a patient diagnosed with COPD according to GOLD criteria from 2022;
- -
- a patient expressing informed consent to participate in the study;
- -
- a patient not hospitalized at the time of the study due to COPD exacerbation or other reasons;
- -
- a patient who is able to answer questions.
2.2. Measures
- -
- my everyday life with COPD (4 questions),
- -
- usual care in COPD (3 questions),
- -
- COPD exacerbation/Flare up (2 questions).
2.3. Statistical methods and calculations
3. Results
- Assessment of psychometric characteristics
- Validity of the PREM-C9 questionnaire
The reliability of PREM-C9 questionnaire
4. Discussion
5. Implications and limitations of the study
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Agusti, A.; Celli, B.R.; Criner, G.J.; Halpin, D.; Anzueto, A.; et al. Global initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2023 Report: GOLD Executive Summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2023, 207, 819–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Agusti, A.; Melén, E.; DeMeo, D.L.; Breyer-Kohansal, R.; Faner, R. Pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: understanding the contributions of gene-environment interactions across the lifespan. Lancet Respir Med 2022, 10, 512–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Matteis, S.; Jarvis, D.; Darnton, A.; Hutchings, S.; Sadhra, S.; Fishwick, D.; et al. The occupations at increased risk of COPD: analysis of lifetime job-histories in the population-based UK Biobank Cohort. Eur Respir J 2019, 54, 1900186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourbeau, J.; Doiron, D,; Biswas, S.; Smith, B.M.; Benedetti, A.; Brook, J.R.; et al. Ambient air pollution and dysanapsis: Associations with lung function and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022, 206, 44–55. [CrossRef]
- Wytyczne oceny technologii medycznych. Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych i Taryfikacji, Warsaw 2016. Available online: https://www.aotm.gov.pl/media/2020/07/20160913_Wytyczne_AOTMiT-1.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2023).
- Patient Charter. Global Allergy & Airways Patient Platform. Available online: https://gaapp.org/diseases/copd/patient-charter/?_gl=1*att4co*_ga*MTc2NzQ3MzU1OS4xNjkyODEwNTc0*_ga_8GH0BEJX5C*MTY5MjgxMDU3NC4xLjEuMTY5MjgxMDU3NS41OS4wLjA.&_ga=2.182628398.901915781.1692810578-1767473559.1692810574 (accessed on 22 August 2023).
- Food and Drug Administration. Value and Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Assessing Effects of Medical Devices CDRH Strategic Priorities. CDRH Strategic Priorities 2016–2017. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHVisionandMission/UCM588576.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2023).
- Valderas, J.M.; Alonso, J.; Guyatt; G.H. Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving from clinical trials into clinical practice. Med J Aust 2008, 189, 93–94. [CrossRef]
- Greenhalgh, J.; Gooding, K.; Gibbons, E.; Dalkin, S.; Wright, J.; Valderas, J.; et al. How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2018, 2, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jamieson Gilmore, K.; Corazza, I.; Coletta, L.; Allin, S. The uses of Patient Reported Experience Measures in health systems: A systematic narrative review. Health Policy 2023, 128, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarri, G.; Freitag, A.; Szegvari, B.; Mountian, I.; Brixner, D.; Bertelsen, N.; et al. The role of patient experience in the value assessment of complex technologies – Do HTA Bodies need to reconsider how value is assessed? Health Policy 2021, 125, 593–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Flott, K.M.; Graham, C.; Darzi, A.; Mayer, E. The challenges of using patient-reported feedback and how they might be addressed. BJM Qual Saf 2017, 26, 502–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Rosis, S.; Cerasuolo, D.; Nuti, S. Using patient-reported measures to drive change in healthcare: the experience of the digital, continuous and systematic PREMs observatory in Italy. BMC Serv Res 2020, 20, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodson, M.; Roberts, C.M.; Andrew, S.; et al. Development and first validation of a patient-reported experience measure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (PREM-C9). Thorax 2019, 74, 600–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Młyńczak, K.; Golicki, D. Przegląd właściwości psychometrycznych kwestionariuszy oceny jakości życia związanych ze zdrowiem (HRQOL). Pol Prz Nauk Zdr 2016, 4, 415–421. [Google Scholar]
- Wild, D.; Grove, A.; Martin, M.; et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for Patient-Reported outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 2005, 8, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brislin, R.W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross-Cult Psychol 1970, 1, 185–216. [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, C.M. The clinical diagnosis of pulmonary emphysema—an experimental study. Proc R Soc Med 1952, 45, 577–584. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Jones, P.W.; et al. Development and first validation of the COPD assessment test. Eur Resp J 2009, 34, 648–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Majkowicz, M.; de Walden-Gałuszko, K.; Chojnacka-Szawłowska, G. ; Model oceny jakości opieki paliatywnej realizowanej w warunkach stacjonarnych, Akademia Medyczna w Gdańsku: Gdańsk, Poland, 2021, pp. 94.
- EQ-5D-5L. Available online: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/ (accessed on 20 August 2023).
- Gerlinger, C.; Bamber, L.; Leverkus, F.; et al. Comparing the EQ-5D-5L utility index based on value sets of different countries: impact on the interpretation of clinical study results. BMC Res Notes 2019, 12, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bandurska, E. The voice of patients really matters: using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences Measures to assess effectiveness of home-based integrated care—a scoping review of practice. Healthcare 2023, 11, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jones, M.A.; Evans, R.A.; Greening, N.J.; Roberts, M.C.; Toms, N.; Hodson, M.; Steiner, M.C. Measuring the experience of living with COPD and receiving medical care in people with COPD. Eur Respir J 2020, 56, 956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moharra, M.; Bayes, B.; Llupia, A.; Almazan, C. Cross-cultural adaptation and face validity of the PREM-C9 version of the Patient Reported Experience Measure in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. XPA & Health Com 2021, 4.
- Chaplin, E.; Coope, D.; Zatloukal, J.; Ward, S.; Singh, S.J. , Houchen-Wolloff, L. The minimum important difference for the PREM-9 following a course of Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR). Euro Resp J, 2899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Streiner, D.L.; Norman, G. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, 2008.
- Bosworth, A.; Cox, M.; O'Brien, A.; Jones, P.; Sargeant, I.; Elliott, A.; Bukhari, M. Development and validation of a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other rheumatic conditions. Current rheumatology reviews 2015, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moody, L.; Benn, S.; Luciano, I.; Ingale, S.; Singh, S. Validation of a real-time patient-reported experience measurement tool for cancer patients in Ontario. J Clin Oncol 2016, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waldreus, N.; Jaarsma, T.; Ivarsson, B.; Stromberg, A.; Arestedt, K.; Kiellstrom, B. Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure patients experiences of health care in pulmonary arterial hypertension outpatient clinics. Heart, lung and circulation 2019, 28, 1074–1081. [CrossRef]
- Mihaljevic, A.L.; Doerr-Harim, C.; Kalkum, E.; Strunk, G. Measuring patient centeredness with German language Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM)-A systematic review and qualitative analysis according to COSMIN. PLoS One 2022, 17, e0264045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hinami, K.; Smith, J.; Deamant, C.D.; et al. When do patient-reported outcome measures inform readmission risk? J Hosp Med 2015, 10, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El Miedany, Y.; El Gaafary, M.; El Arousy, N.; et al. Arthritis education: the integration of patient-reported outcome measures and patient self-management. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012, 30, 899–904. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Santana, M.J.; Feeny, D. Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management. Qual Life Res 2014, 23, 1505–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenhalgh, J.; Meadows, K. The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review. J Eval Clin Pract 1999, 5, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsang, S.; Royse, C.F.; Terkawi, A.S. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaest 2017, 11, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aithal, A.; Aithal, P.S. Development and validation of survey questionnaire & experimental data – a systematical review-based statistical approach. Munich Personal RePEc Archive 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar]


| Parameter | Sub parameter | Number | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 21 | 50.00 |
| Male | 21 | 50.00 | |
| Place of living | City | 39 | 92.86 |
| Village | 3 | 7.14 | |
| Education level | Primary | 1 | 2.38 |
| Vocational | 15 | 35.71 | |
| Secondary | 23 | 54.76 | |
| Higher | 3 | 7.14 | |
| Self-assessment of material status | Very good | 7 | 16.57 |
| Average | 25 | 59.52 | |
| Poor | 10 | 23.81 | |
| Very poor | 0 | 0.00 | |
| Living alone | Yes | 11 | 26.19 |
| No | 31 | 73.81 |
| Questionnaire | The average of the points obtained | % of max points (showing the worst state) | Median | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PREM-C9 | 9.33 | 20.73 | 6.5 | 6.98 |
| CAT | 17.02 | 42.63 | 16 | 8.90 |
| EQ-5D-5L | 10.07 | 40.28 | 9 | 4.27 |
| HADS A (anxiety) | 4.09 | 19.48 | 3 | 4.05 |
| HADS D (depression) | 3.29 | 15.67 | 2 | 3.27 |
| Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin’s test and Bartlett’s test | ||
|---|---|---|
| KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.675 | |
| Bartlett’s sphericity test | Approximated chi-squared | 108.382 |
| df | 36 | |
| significance | 0.000 | |
| Pair of variables (questionnaires) | Spearman rank order correlation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| N | Rho | p | |
| CAT & PC-9 | 42 | 0.440098 | 0.003539 |
| EQ-5D-5L & PC-9 | 42 | 0.386974 | 0.011352 |
| EQ VAS & PC-9 | 41 | -0.346096 | 0.026653 |
| HADS-A & PC-9 | 42 | 0.370864 | 0.015612 |
| HADS-D & PC-9 | 42 | 0.387405 | 0.011253 |
| The number of a question in PREM-C9 | Correlations are significant when p < 0.05000 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P-C9 1 | P-C9 2 | P-C9 3 | P-C9 4 | P-C9 5 | P-C9 6 | P-C9 7 | P-C9 8 | P-C9 9 | |
| P-C9 1 | 1.000000 | 0.509477 | 0.475456 | 0.280433 | -0.067198 | 0.453085 | 0.327855 | 0.056390 | 0.254275 |
| P-C9 2 | 0.509477 | 1.000000 | 0.377423 | 0.159650 | 0.147470 | 0.477361 | 0.149318 | 0.197162 | 0.159660 |
| P-C9 3 | 0.475456 | 0.377423 | 1.000000 | 0.536886 | -0.091139 | 0.396248 | 0.209143 | 0.251775 | 0.375878 |
| P-C9 4 | 0.280433 | 0.159650 | 0.536886 | 1.000000 | -0.143419 | 0.256114 | 0.081663 | -0.049719 | 0.093140 |
| P-C9 5 | -0.067198 | 0.147470 | -0.091139 | -0.143419 | 1.000000 | 0.168737 | 0.080009 | 0.427637 | 0.200056 |
| P-C9 6 | 0.453085 | 0.477361 | 0.396248 | 0.256114 | 0.168737 | 1.000000 | 0.527371 | 0.272347 | 0.309339 |
| P-C9 7 | 0.327855 | 0.149318 | 0.209143 | 0.081663 | 0.080009 | 0.527371 | 1.000000 | 0.413718 | 0.509607 |
| P-C9 8 | 0.056390 | 0.197162 | 0.251775 | -0.049719 | 0.427637 | 0.272347 | 0.413718 | 1.000000 | 0.482369 |
| P-C9 9 | 0.254275 | 0.159660 | 0.375878 | 0.093140 | 0.200056 | 0.309339 | 0.509607 | 0.482369 | 1.000000 |
| The number of a question in PREM-C9 | Correlation with the sum P-C9 | p |
|---|---|---|
| P-C9 1 | 0.6 | 0.000 |
| P-C9 2 | 0.6 | 0.000 |
| P-C9 3 | 0.7 | 0.000 |
| P-C9 4 | 0.4 | 0.000 |
| P-C9 5 | 0.4 | 0.000 |
| P-C9 6 | 0.7 | 0.000 |
| P-C9 7 | 0.6 | 0.000 |
| P-C9 8 | 0.6 | 0.000 |
| P-C9 9 | 0.6 | 0.000 |
| Questionnaire | PREM-C9 total (Damps-Konstanska et al.) |
PREM –C9 total (Hodson et al. 2019) |
PREM –C9 total (Jones et al. 2020) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAT | Rho= 0,44 P=0,003539 |
Rho= 0,42 P=0,03 |
Rho= 0,27 P=0,03 |
| HADS -Anxiety | Rho= 0.370864 P=0,015612 |
Rho= 0,30 P<0,005 |
Rho= 0,4 P=0,001 |
| HADS -Depression | Rho= 0,387405 P=0,011253 |
Rho= 0,41 P<0,005 |
Rho= 0,21 P=0,09 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).