Development and psychometric evaluation of the assessment of self-injection questionnaire: an adaptation of the self-injection assessment questionnaire

Farrah Pompilus, Anna Ciesluk, Sara Strzok, Valerie Ciaravino, Kristina Harris, Boglarka Szegvari, Irina Mountian, Sophie Cleanthous, Juliette Meunier, Farrah Pompilus, Anna Ciesluk, Sara Strzok, Valerie Ciaravino, Kristina Harris, Boglarka Szegvari, Irina Mountian, Sophie Cleanthous, Juliette Meunier

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments provide robust and effective means of evaluating patients' treatment experience; however, none adequately cover experience using self-injection devices with enhanced features, such as an electromechanical autoinjector (e-Device). The aim of this study was to develop a PRO instrument that accurately assesses patient experience of using an e-Device and to evaluate its psychometric properties.

Methods: A mixed-methods approach was taken; two parallel, targeted literature reviews were conducted to identify relevant concepts and existing self-injection PRO instruments that could be adapted. Patient feedback obtained from two focus groups was used to inform initial instrument development. The pilot instrument was then administered in a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 clinical study in which patients self-injected certolizumab pegol using an e-Device, to gather evidence of its psychometric qualities. Exit interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of patients enrolled in the study to confirm the appropriateness and clarity of the items included and cognitively debrief the instrument. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on all items, and each domain's internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's ɑ.

Results: The literature searches identified several e-Device-specific concepts related to device features, device function, side effects/reactions/pain, confidence, and interference/convenience in daily life. Seven existing PRO instruments were identified. The Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ), containing pre- and post-injection questionnaire modules, was selected as most suitable and adapted using feedback from 19 patients in the two focus groups to form the pilot Assessment of Self-Injection (ASI) questionnaire. CFA resulted in some changes to the grouping of items in the post-injection module domains following psychometric evaluation of the ASI. Internal consistency was satisfactory for all pre- and post-injection domains (ɑ > 0.8). Cognitive debriefing results from 12 patient exit interviews confirmed the ASI's appropriateness and clarity.

Conclusions: The ASI was developed iteratively with patient input and was evaluated in its intended clinical context of use. Psychometric analyses indicated promising cross-sectional results; the ASI was well understood and considered relevant by patients self-injecting using the e-Device, suggesting that it could be used in real-world settings to aid with clinical decision making.

Trial registration: NCT03357471.

Keywords: Cognitive debriefing; Concept elicitation; Exit interviews; Focus groups; Patient-reported outcomes; Psychometric analysis; Rheumatology; Self-injection.

Conflict of interest statement

VC, KH, BS, IM: Employees of UCB Pharma. FP, AC, SS, SC, JM: Employees of Modus Outcomes.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of PRO development. ASI Assessment of Self-Injection, PRO patient-reported outcome, SIAQ Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Literature review searches. a Clinical, observational study concepts literature review. b PRO instrument literature review. PRO patient-reported outcome
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Self-injection conceptual framework development. a Literature-informed conceptual framework. b Sponsor-informed conceptual framework. Bold concepts incorporated into final ASI conceptual framework. c Final ASI conceptual framework, adapted from Keininger and Coteur, 2011. ASI Assessment of Self-Injection, SIAQ Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire

References

    1. Schwartzman S, Morgan GJ., Jr Does route of administration affect the outcome of TNF antagonist therapy? Arthritis Res Ther. 2004;6(Suppl 2):S19–23. doi: 10.1186/ar996.
    1. Anderson BJ, Redondo MJ. What can we learn from patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5:1563–1571. doi: 10.1177/193229681100500633.
    1. Pouls B, Kristensen L, Petersson M, et al. A pilot study examining patient preference and satisfaction for ava, a reusable electronic injection device to administer certolizumab pegol. RMD Open 2019.
    1. Gadallah MA, Boulos DN, Gebrel A, et al. Assessment of rheumatoid arthritis patients' adherence to treatment. Am J Med Sci. 2015;349:151–156. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0000000000000376.
    1. Gau M, Takasawa K. Initial patient choice of a growth hormone device improves child and adolescent adherence to and therapeutic effects of growth hormone replacement therapy. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2017;30:989–993. doi: 10.1515/jpem-2017-0146.
    1. van den Bemt BJF, Gettings L, Domanska B, et al. A portfolio of biologic self-injection devices in rheumatology: how patient involvement in device design can improve treatment experience. Drug Deliv. 2019;26:384–392. doi: 10.1080/10717544.2019.1587043.
    1. Udalova I, Monaco C, Nanchahal J, et al. Anti-TNF therapy. Microbiol Spectr 2016;4.
    1. Bhoi P, Bessette L, Bell MJ, et al. Adherence and dosing interval of subcutaneous antitumour necrosis factor biologics among patients with inflammatory arthritis: analysis from a Canadian administrative database. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e015872. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015872.
    1. European Medicines Agency. Cimzia Summary of Product Characteristics. , 2018.
    1. United States Food and Drug Administration. Cimzia Prescribing Information. , 2019.
    1. Domanska B, Stumpp O, Poon S, et al. Using patient feedback to optimize the design of a certolizumab pegol electromechanical self-injection device: insights from human factors studies. Adv Ther. 2018;35:100–115. doi: 10.1007/s12325-017-0645-1.
    1. Morse JM. Evolving trends in qualitative research: advances in mixed-method design. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:583–585. doi: 10.1177/1049732305275169.
    1. United States Food and Drug Administration. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. , 2009.
    1. United States Food and Drug Administration. Roadmap to patient-focused outcome measurement in clinical trials. , 2015.
    1. Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, et al. Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health. 2009;12:1075–1083. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00603.x.
    1. Tatla D, Mountian I, Szegvari B, et al. A Multicenter, Open-label study to evaluate the safe and effective use of a new electromechanical auto-injection device for self-injection of certolizumab pegol. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2020;17:855–862. doi: 10.1080/17425247.2020.1747430.
    1. Keininger D, Coteur G. Assessment of self-injection experience in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: psychometric validation of the Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ) Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:2. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-2.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Nunally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3. New York: Tata McGraw-hill Education; 1994.
    1. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231–240.
    1. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–S189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. Pleil AM, Kimel M, McCormack J, et al. Psychometric assessment of the Injection Pen Assessment Questionnaire (IPAQ): measuring ease of use and preference with injection pens for human growth hormone. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:126. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-126.
    1. Brod M, Hammer M, Christensen T, et al. Understanding and assessing the impact of treatment in diabetes: the Treatment-Related Impact Measures for Diabetes and Devices (TRIM-Diabetes and TRIM-Diabetes Device) Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:83. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-83.
    1. Cramer JA, Cuffel BJ, Divan V, et al. Patient satisfaction with an injection device for multiple sclerosis treatment. Acta Neurol Scand. 2006;113:156–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00568.x.
    1. Demary W, Schwenke H, Rockwitz K, et al. Subcutaneously administered methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis, by prefilled syringes versus prefilled pens: patient preference and comparison of the self-injection experience. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:1061–1071.
    1. Acquadro C, Conway K, Girourdet C, et al. Linguistic validation manual for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments. MAPI research trust, 2004. ISBN:2-9522021-0-9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren