Systematic Review of the Effect of a One-Day Versus Seven-Day Recall Duration on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing uncertainty around the most suitable recall period for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHOD: This systematic review integrates quantitative and qualitative literature across health, economics, and psychology to explore the effect of a one-day (or '24-h') versus seven-day (or 'one week') recall period. The following databases were searched from database inception to 30 November 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, and Sociological Abstracts. Studies were included that compared a one-day (or '24-h') versus seven-day (or weekly) recall period condition on patient-reported scores for PROM and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) instrument scores in adult populations (aged 18 and above) or combined paediatric and adult populations with a majority of respondents aged over 18 years. Studies were excluded if they assessed health behaviours only, used ecological momentary assessment to derive an index of daily recall, or incorporated clinician reports of patient symptoms. We extracted results relevant to six domains with generic health relevance: physical functioning, pain, cognition, psychosocial wellbeing, sleep-related symptoms and aggregated disease-specific signs and symptoms. Quantitative studies compared weekly recall scores with the mean or maximum score over the last seven days or with the same-day recall score. RESULTS: Overall, across the 24 quantitative studies identified, 158 unique results were identified. Symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and HRQoL lower when assessed with a weekly recall than a one-day recall. A narrative synthesis of 33 qualitative studies integrated patient perspectives on the suitability of a one-day versus seven-day recall period for assessing health state or quality of life. Participants had mixed preferences, some noted the accuracy of recall for the one-day period but others preferred the seven-day recall for conditions characterised by high symptom variability, or where PROMs concepts required integration of infrequent experiences or functioning over time. CONCLUSION: This review identified a clear trend toward higher symptom scores and worse quality of life being reported for a seven-day compared to a one-day recall. The review also identified anomalies in this pattern for some wellbeing items and a need for further research on positively framed items. A better understanding of the impact of using different recall periods within PROMs and HRQoL instruments will help contextualise future comparisons between instruments. Questionnaires ask patients about their health over different time periods (e.g., "what were your symptoms like over the last week?" versus "what were your symptoms like today?"). Studies find that people may report their symptoms as more severe when they are asked to think about their symptoms over the last week compared to the last day. Understanding how different time periods influence patient responses will allow researchers to compare and develop new questionnaires and may help clinicians to choose the best questionnaire to understand their patient's condition. We conducted a systematic literature review on studies which had looked at the impact of using different recall periods on patient responses. We found 24 studies that compared patient scores from questionnaires asking their health "over the last day" compared to "over the last week". Overall, symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and health as poorer when they were reported over the last week compared to the last day on average. We also found 33 studies that asked patients to describe which recall period they preferred. Patients had mixed preferences with more preferring a seven-day recall where symptoms and health impacts varied a lot.

Lower estradiol predicts increased reinstatement of fear in women.

Low levels of estradiol in women have been associated with impaired fear extinction recall, with suggestions this may promote the return of fear and heighten the female vulnerability for anxiety disorders. A particularly important measure for the return of fear is reinstatement, but no human studies to date have examined the impact of estradiol on fear reinstatement. Forty-two healthy females completed a differential fear conditioning, extinction and reinstatement task with skin conductance response (SCR) amplitude indexing level of conditioned fear. Saliva samples were taken to measure estradiol and progesterone. To examine fear reinstatement, SCR amplitude was compared between the last trial of the late extinction phase to the first re-extinction trial following the unsignaled presentation of two aversive electric shocks. No significant effects of estradiol were found for acquisition of fear conditioning or fear extinction learning. Lower estradiol predicted a significantly larger generalized SCR amplitude at re-extinction (post-reinstatement) in women. This provides novel evidence suggesting a protective role of estradiol in potentially reducing the relapse of fear following re-exposure to aversive stimuli, although further research is necessary in clinical populations to clarify this effect.