Patient led measure of outcomes

[bobbler]

Thinking about how we can measure if treatments work. A lot of the questionnaires and scales seem to try to compare across subjects, which is really difficult for many of us, they don’t fit our experiences or severity. So people try to capture a range of experiences and we end up with huge long questionnaires. So how do we measure outcomes?

How about this
- Pick and describe in your own words 5 activities that you feel define your current limitations, include 2 things things you can only occasionally do
Examples: get to the toilet in the morning, sit up comfortably throughout the day, have a 5 minute conversation with someone , have a shower, walk to the car (I don’t know I haven’t done those last two for years but you get the idea, the usual sort of things we see on questionnaires, but defined by the patient)
- Count how many days you can do these per month, before and after interventions, without negative impact, record weekly
- Maybe add a measure of how many days are ‘good’ ‘average’ or ‘bad’ for you, record daily

This would be person specific but capture the changes which are relevant and/or important to them and how their ME/CFS affects them. It would be quicker than most things to record but I think would allow measurement of if an intervention has actually worked.

Probably needs some refinements but…thoughts?

I've just re-read this. And have picked up on the bit in bold in this:

Count how many days you can do these per month, before and after interventions, without negative impact, record weekly

And I think that is an issue. Because almost everything has a negative impact, I just have to make some wicked automatic mental calculation of pros vs cons that sort of combines in with everything else to become eg how much I can brush teeth, shower etc. almost certainly the same with time lying on back or not vs boredom.

Is the negative impact bit important?


I think I'd really struggle with assigning how many days were good, ave or bad or labelling most days that aren't terrible as something.

 

[NelliePledge]

yeah I agree there are 2 aspects 1- managing to do the activity at all, and 2-=the consequences of doing the activity.
But I think the frequency is a rough proxy for the consequences because if they were less I would go out more often.

I think without negative impact doesn’t quite work because when I go out there’s always negative impact just less or more.

 

[Kitty]

Is the negative impact bit important?

Yes it's crucial, but if we do a good enough job of coming up with revealing activity categories, and recording them objectively—i.e., things we actually did, not thought we could probably do—it should show up in long term patterns.

It won't show that we were feeling really crap when we did something, but that crapness will influence what we chose to do in the following days, the following week.

 

[hotblack]

I wonder if the people at visible would be willing to engage with this @hotblack might be worth asking

That’s an interesting idea

Is the negative impact bit important?

Good question and I understand the mental gymnastics and difficulty of capturing this. I’m not sure what the best way is, hence proposing some ideas and seeing if they stand up or can be improved.

I think I phrased it better with ‘significant negative impact’ but maybe ‘more negative impact than usual’ could work? And of course this is all subjective, so what these phrases mean is up to an individual.

My thinking was the difference between something like getting to the loo when you manage it and when it is like hell (see the examples I gave here). So in this way we could capture when an activity you regularly do or have to do becomes harder. Because that could be important and people often say capturing it is.

Maybe you’re right and it’s not important. And just are you doing the thing is what we want to capture. It will depend upon what activities people choose I guess?

Kitty puts this bit well

It won't show that we were feeling really crap when we did something, but that crapness will influence what we chose to do in the following days, the following week.

 

[Suffolkres]

'A simple tool like the disability scale we use being confirmed so if someone is more severe it’s calibratable to eg other serious illnesses..
In 2018, we put some suggestions leaflets etc for our Suffolk GP AGM and exhibition.

An A4 symptom scoring chart was part of this and has proved useful for us at home, to monitor progress, fluctuations and symptom shift over time.

Our banner was taken to RCGP AGM in Glasgow by Nigel Speight for lecture before 250 zGPs, on behalf of 25% Group Tymes Trust and Suffolk Youth & Parent Support Group.

Used by NI Groups, Joan and Tom modified, and Helen in Scotland.

We did it as a pack to raise awareness and streamline process of;

GP as first post of call, referral and diagnosis, severely and symptom Identification and monitoring over time.

It was endorsed and authorised by the CCG to assist with commissioning and direction of future service fulfillment and patient expectations plus Joint Norfolk and Suffolk Health Overview and Scrutiny recommendations.

It was the basis for our journey to where we are now, or will be on 1st August hopefully.

Bearing in mind it was pre NICE NG206.
But we never had that CBT GET problem in Suffolk who embraced CIC .....

We had Jo Edwards give material the once over too!
I will make the pack material available.

It might be worth resurrecting some of it?

 

[Kitty]

An A4 symptom scoring chart was part of this and has proved useful for us at home, to monitor progress, fluctuations and symptom shift over time.

I agree it would be useful, and if the symptoms monitored are tailored to the individual it would make record-keeping quite nimble. I wonder if it could be got down to a list of three or four? Not necessarily the most severe or troublesome symptoms, but the most revealing of how you're functioning.

It could fit in with the suggestions I've been making for monitoring of the effects of a treatment on activity. The idea is to come up with as short a list as possible of ordinary daily activities, which will show trends over time rather than day-to-day change.

It might go something like this:

• Three things you do at least once a week, even in a crash. (Regular ticks indicate no change, no ticks indicate substantial worsening)
  
  
• Two things you usually do at least once a week, but can't do in a crash. (No ticks indicate worsening)
  
  
• Two things you need to avoid doing more than once a month. (Frequent ticks indicate some improvement)
  
  
• Two things you can't even attempt but would love to be able to do. (Any tick indicates substantial improvement)

The person just checks boxes to say how many of them they did this week. The less able they are, the less box ticking they have to do. Ideally, monitoring starts six months or more before the trial.

There might be something in it. It hasn't been explored much in ME/CFS, partly because the BPS theory assumes people avoid doing things they could manage if they tried. This assumes the opposite, that people do things even though they know they'll feel awful afterwards. That they'll squeeze the pips out of even the smallest gain.

It'd probably only work for a treatment that has a significant effect or none at all. The trends might be too faint to measure marginal changes, especially as they'll be confounded by factors like weather, cold viruses, etc. It'd need to be supported by a step counter, a heart rate monitor, and a simple symptom score.

 

[hotblack]

The person just checks boxes to say how many of them they did this week. The less able they are, the less box ticking they have to do. Ideally, monitoring starts six months or more before the trial.

Great ideas! I can picture how this works, more of a weekly tally?