Article Text

PDF

PWE-114 The Ibd-control Questionnaire: Multi-centre Validation Plus Evaluation In Routine Care
  1. T Gledhill1,
  2. E Brown2,
  3. B Collins3,
  4. S Subramanian4,
  5. A Bassi3,
  6. K Bodger1
  1. 1Department of Gastroenterology, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, UK
  2. 2Department of Gastroenterology, Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
  3. 3Department of Gastroenterology, Whiston Hospital, Prescot
  4. 4Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, UK

Abstract

Introduction Routine capture of reliable, patient-centred health status measures for IBD has not become part of standard practice. The IBD-Control questionnaire is a short (13 item), generic patient-reported outcome measure which we developed to support routine care.1

Methods To further define performance in varied settings, we undertook: (A) A prospective study at an inner city teaching hospital and a DGH, to show reproducibility of psychometric properties. Clinic patients completed IBD-Control and the local IBD team recorded activity index, global physician assessment and treatment. (B) A prospective endoscopic study, with IBD-Control prior to endoscopy and Mayo score of mucosa. IBD teams were blinded to questionnaires. (C) A service evaluation in our unit, auditing implementation of IBD-Control to support a new virtual (telephone) clinic – a case study on integrating PROMs into routine care.

Results 113 IBD-Control questionnaires returned to date.

Patients Age, mean [sd]: 50 [16] yrs; Female: 54%; UC: 73%; Disease duration, mean [sd]: 7.5 [7.7] yrs. Global Physician Assessment: Inactive 48.3%; Mild 41.3%; Moderate 10.3%; Severe 0%. Summary scores, mean [sd]: IBD-Control-8 (range: 0–16): 11.7 [5.2]; IBD-Control-VAS (range: 0–100): 73.5 [76.1]. Psychometric properties: Completion rate: 93–94% per item; Strong correlation between the 2 summary scores: IBD-Control-8 vs IBD-Control-VAS, r = 0.83; Validity of summary scores, IBD-Control-8 [IBD-Control-VAS]: (1) Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index, r = –0.77 [–0.72]; (2) Harvey Bradshaw Index, r = –0.91 [–0.78] (3) Mayo Score, r = –0.64 [–0.69]; (3) Global Physician Assessment, mean scores differed significantly across categories for both scores (inactive > mild > moderate; p < 0.01, ANOVA). Service Evaluation: 64 ‘delayed follow-up or DNA’ patients invited for postal return of PROM then 4–6 wk review, with 59% return rate (‘active disease’ indicated in 10%). Telephone consultation in 63%. Unplanned care occurred in 2 respondents within 30 days, both with IBD-Control indicative of active disease.

Conclusion IBD-Control has strong measurement properties and is easy to administer. Our experience of integrating IBD-Control into non-face-to-face follow-up clinics suggests that using a validated PROM to support care is acceptable to patients and achievable.

Reference Bodger K et al. Development and validation of a rapid, generic measure of disease control from the patient’s perspective: the IBD-Control questionnaire. Gut 2013;published online October 9:2013 [ahead of print]

Disclosure of Interest None Declared.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.