Content validity and psychometric properties of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus©) instrument in patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: A well-defined and reliable patient-reported outcome instrument for COVID-19 is important for assessing symptom severity and supporting research studies. The InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) instrument has been expanded to include loss of taste and smell in the FLU-PRO Plus, to comprehensively cover COVID-19 symptoms. Our studies were designed to evaluate and validate the FLU-PRO Plus among patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Two studies were conducted: (1) a qualitative, non-interventional, cross-sectional study of patients with COVID-19 involving hybrid concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews; (2) a psychometric evaluation of the measurement properties of FLU-PRO Plus, using data from COMET-ICE (COVID-19 Monoclonal antibody Efficacy Trial-Intent to Care Early). RESULTS: In the qualitative interviews (n = 30), all 34 items of the FLU-PRO Plus were considered relevant to COVID-19, and participants determined the questionnaire was easily understood, well written, and comprehensive. In the psychometric evaluation (n = 845), the internal consistency reliability of FLU-PRO Plus total score was 0.94, ranging from 0.71 to 0.90 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 20-21) was 0.83 for total score, with domain scores of 0.67-0.89. Confirmatory factor analysis with the novel smell/taste domain demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data. CONCLUSION: The content, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the FLU-PRO Plus in the COVID-19 population were supported. Our results suggest that FLU-PRO Plus is a content- and psychometrically-valid, fit-for-purpose measure which is easily understood by patients. FLU-PRO Plus is a suitable PRO measure for evaluating symptoms of COVID-19 and treatment benefit directly from the patient perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT04545060, September 10, 2020; retrospectively registered.

Development of the SF-6Dv2 health utility survey: comprehensibility and patient preference.

BACKGROUND: The SF-6Dv2 classification system assesses health states in six domains-physical functioning, role function, bodily pain, vitality, social functioning, and mental health. Scores have previously been derived from the SF-36v2® Health Survey. We aimed to develop a six-item stand-alone SF-6Dv2 Health Utility Survey (SF-6Dv2 HUS) and evaluate its comprehensibility. METHODS: Two forms of a stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS were developed for evaluation. Form A had 6 questions with 5-6 response choices, while Form B used 6 headings and 5-6 statements describing the health levels within each domain. The two forms were evaluated by 40 participants, recruited from the general population. Participants were randomized to debrief one form of the stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS during a 75-min interview, using think-aloud techniques followed by an interviewer-led detailed review. Participants then reviewed the other form of SF-6Dv2 and determined which they preferred. Any issues or confusion with items was recorded, as was as overall preference. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and NVivo Software (v12). RESULTS: Participants were able to easily complete both forms. Participant feedback supported the comprehensibility of the SF-6Dv2 HUS. When comparing forms, 25/40 participants preferred Form A, finding it clearer and easier to answer when presented in question/response format. The numbered questions and underlining of key words in Form A fostered quick and easy comprehension and completion of the survey. However, despite an overall preference for Form A, almost half of participants (n = 19) preferred the physical functioning item in Form B, with more descriptive response choices. CONCLUSION: The results support using Form A, with modifications to the physical functioning item, as the stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS. The stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS is brief, easy to administer, and comprehensible to the general population.

Mental health impact on healthcare workers due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a U.S. cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the mental health and well-being of health care workers (HCWs). This study examined mental health outcomes and COVID-related stress impacts among a diverse sample of ambulatory HCWs, including clinicians and support staff, as well as the associations between mental health outcomes and work impairments in this population. Detailing these results can help in designing interventions to alleviate this burden. METHODS: "The Health Care Worker Stress Survey" was administered to ambulatory care providers and support staff at three multispecialty care delivery organizations as part of an online, cross-sectional study conducted between June 8, 2020, and July 13, 2020. RESULTS: The greatest stress impact reported by HCWs was the uncertainty regarding when the COVID-19 outbreak would be under control, while the least reported concern was about self-dying from COVID-19. Differences in COVID-19 stress impacts were observed by age, gender, and occupational risk factors. Approximately 50% of participants reported more than a minimal level of anxiety, including 22.5% who indicated moderate to severe levels of anxiety. Higher levels of anxiety were observed with younger ages and female gender, while occupational roles with increased exposure risk did not report higher levels of anxiety. Roughly two-thirds of the sample reported less than good sleep quality and one-third to one-half of the sample reported other sleep related problems that differed by age and gender. Role limitations due to emotional health correlated with COVID-19 related stress, anxiety and sleep problems. CONCLUSIONS: Using established, validated measures, we quantified mental health outcomes within a diverse sample of ambulatory care HCWs during the pandemic. Younger and female HCWs reported greater anxiety burden; HCWs with higher occupational risk of COVID exposure did not report higher levels of anxiety. Notable proportions of HCWs reported sleep and work impairments. Due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, it is difficult to attribute these patterns to the pandemic. These results underscore the depth and extent of mental health outcomes in HCWs in ambulatory settings and raise important questions on new interventions to relieve that burden. Further research is needed to study specific interventions to support the mental health and wellbeing of HCWs.