Display options
Cite
Sprangers MAG, Sajobi T, Vanier A, et al. Response shift in results of patient-reported outcome measures: a commentary to The Response Shift-in Sync Working Group initiative. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(12):3299-3308doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02747-4.
Sprangers, M. A. G., Sajobi, T., Vanier, A., Mayo, N. E., Sawatzky, R., Lix, L. M., Oort, F. J., Sébille, V. (2021). Response shift in results of patient-reported outcome measures: a commentary to The Response Shift-in Sync Working Group initiative. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 30(12), 3299-3308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02747-4
Sprangers, Mirjam A G, et al. "Response shift in results of patient-reported outcome measures: a commentary to The Response Shift-in Sync Working Group initiative." Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation vol. 30,12 (2021): 3299-3308. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02747-4
Sprangers MAG, Sajobi T, Vanier A, Mayo NE, Sawatzky R, Lix LM, Oort FJ, Sébille V. Response shift in results of patient-reported outcome measures: a commentary to The Response Shift-in Sync Working Group initiative. Qual Life Res. 2021 Dec;30(12):3299-3308. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02747-4. Epub 2021 Jan 22. PMID: 33481193; PMCID: PMC8602228.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Qual Life Res. 2021 Dec;30(12):3299-3308. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02747-4. Epub 2021 Jan 22.

Response shift in results of patient-reported outcome measures: a commentary to The Response Shift-in Sync Working Group initiative.

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation

Mirjam A G Sprangers, Tolulope Sajobi, Antoine Vanier, Nancy E Mayo, Richard Sawatzky, Lisa M Lix, Frans J Oort, Véronique Sébille,

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Psychology, Research Institute Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC, Meibergdreef 15, J3-211, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected].
  2. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
  3. Inserm-University of Nantes-University of Tours, UMR 1246 Sphere "Methods in Patient-Centered Outcomes and Health Research", Nantes, France.
  4. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
  5. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre Research Institute, Montreal, Canada.
  6. School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada.
  7. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  8. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
  9. Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  10. UMR INSERM 1246, SPHERE "methodS in Patient-Centered Outcomes and HEalth ResEarch", University of Nantes, University of Tours, Nantes, France.

PMID: 33481193 PMCID: PMC8602228 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02747-4

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Working Group undertook a critical, comprehensive synthesis of the response shift work to date. We aimed to (1) describe the rationale for this initiative; (2) outline how the Working Group operated; (3) summarize the papers that comprise this initiative; and (4) discuss the way forward.

METHODS: Four interdisciplinary teams, consisting of response shift experts, external experts, and new investigators, prepared papers on (1) definitions and theoretical underpinnings, (2) operationalizations and response shift methods, (3) implications for healthcare decision-making, and (4) on the published magnitudes of response shift effects. Draft documents were discussed during a two-day meeting. Papers were reviewed by all members.

RESULTS: Vanier and colleagues revised the formal definition and theory of response shift, and applied these in an amended, explanatory model of response shift. Sébille and colleagues conducted a critical examination of eleven response shift methods and concluded that for each method extra steps are required to make the response shift interpretation plausible. Sawatzky and colleagues created a framework for considering the impact of response shift on healthcare decision-making at the level of the individual patient (micro), the organization (meso), and policy (macro). Sajobi and colleagues are conducting a meta-analysis of published response shift effects. Preliminary findings indicate that the mean effect sizes are often small and variable across studies that measure different outcomes and use different methods.

CONCLUSION: Future response shift research will benefit from collaboration among diverse people, formulating alternative hypotheses of response shift, and conducting the most conclusive studies aimed at testing these (falsification).

© 2021. The Author(s).

Keywords: Decision-making; Definition; Meta-analysis; Method; Response shift; Theory

References

  1. Psychol Rev. 2000 Apr;107(2):358-67 - PubMed
  2. Med Decis Making. 2015 Apr;35(3):388-97 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Nov;62(11):1115-7 - PubMed
  4. Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1561-72 - PubMed
  5. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jun;48(11):1563-75 - PubMed
  6. Qual Life Res. 2021 Dec;30(12):3309-3322 - PubMed
  7. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005 Sep 07;3:55 - PubMed
  8. Qual Life Res. 2010 Aug;19(6):929-30 - PubMed
  9. Qual Life Res. 2007 Dec;16(10):1627-34 - PubMed
  10. Qual Life Res. 2015 Mar;24(3):553-64 - PubMed
  11. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jun;48(11):1507-15 - PubMed
  12. Qual Life Res. 2019 Oct;28(10):2623-2630 - PubMed
  13. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(2):123-31 - PubMed
  14. Qual Life Res. 2021 Dec;30(12):3325-3342 - PubMed
  15. Psychol Rev. 2002 Jul;109(3):599-604; discussion 605-7 - PubMed
  16. Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1133-1146 - PubMed
  17. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jun;48(11):1549-61 - PubMed
  18. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;89:154-159 - PubMed
  19. Qual Life Res. 2005 Apr;14(3):587-98 - PubMed
  20. Science. 1964 Oct 16;146(3642):347-53 - PubMed
  21. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jun;48(11):1531-48 - PubMed
  22. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jun;48(11):1577-88 - PubMed
  23. Qual Life Res. 2006 Nov;15(9):1533-50 - PubMed
  24. Qual Life Res. 2013 May;22(4):695-703 - PubMed
  25. Qual Life Res. 2019 Mar;28(3):629-636 - PubMed
  26. Qual Life Res. 2021 Dec;30(12):3343-3357 - PubMed
  27. Stat Methods Med Res. 2020 Apr;29(4):1015-1029 - PubMed
  28. Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):477-9 - PubMed
  29. BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Sep 11;20(1):61 - PubMed
  30. Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):481-2 - PubMed
  31. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Nov;62(11):1138-47 - PubMed
  32. Qual Life Res. 2011 Mar;20(2):153-60 - PubMed
  33. Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):473-5 - PubMed
  34. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004 Mar 15;2:14 - PubMed
  35. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Nov;62(11):1126-37 - PubMed
  36. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2009 Mar;35(3):336-50 - PubMed
  37. Qual Life Res. 2008 May;17(4):627-39 - PubMed
  38. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(9):981-7 - PubMed
  39. Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):465-71 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types