Journal of Medical Internet Research (Apr 2023)

The Development, Deployment, and Evaluation of the CLEFT-Q Computerized Adaptive Test: A Multimethods Approach Contributing to Personalized, Person-Centered Health Assessments in Plastic Surgery

  • Conrad Harrison,
  • Inge Apon,
  • Kenny Ardouin,
  • Chris Sidey-Gibbons,
  • Anne Klassen,
  • Stefan Cano,
  • Karen Wong Riff,
  • Andrea Pusic,
  • Sarah Versnel,
  • Maarten Koudstaal,
  • Alexander C Allori,
  • Carolyn Rogers-Vizena,
  • Marc C Swan,
  • Dominic Furniss,
  • Jeremy Rodrigues

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/41870
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 25
p. e41870

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundRoutine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and computerized adaptive tests (CATs) may improve care in a range of surgical conditions. However, most available CATs are neither condition-specific nor coproduced with patients and lack clinically relevant score interpretation. Recently, a PROM called the CLEFT-Q has been developed for use in the treatment of cleft lip or palate (CL/P), but the assessment burden may be limiting its uptake into clinical practice. ObjectiveWe aimed to develop a CAT for the CLEFT-Q, which could facilitate the uptake of the CLEFT-Q PROM internationally. We aimed to conduct this work with a novel patient-centered approach and make source code available as an open-source framework for CAT development in other surgical conditions. MethodsCATs were developed with the Rasch measurement theory, using full-length CLEFT-Q responses collected during the CLEFT-Q field test (this included 2434 patients across 12 countries). These algorithms were validated in Monte Carlo simulations involving full-length CLEFT-Q responses collected from 536 patients. In these simulations, the CAT algorithms approximated full-length CLEFT-Q scores iteratively, using progressively fewer items from the full-length PROM. Agreement between full-length CLEFT-Q score and CAT score at different assessment lengths was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient, root-mean-square error (RMSE), and 95% limits of agreement. CAT settings, including the number of items to be included in the final assessments, were determined in a multistakeholder workshop that included patients and health care professionals. A user interface was developed for the platform, and it was prospectively piloted in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Interviews were conducted with 6 patients and 4 clinicians to explore end-user experience. ResultsThe length of all 8 CLEFT-Q scales in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Standard Set combined was reduced from 76 to 59 items, and at this length, CAT assessments reproduced full-length CLEFT-Q scores accurately (with correlations between full-length CLEFT-Q score and CAT score exceeding 0.97, and the RMSE ranging from 2 to 5 out of 100). Workshop stakeholders considered this the optimal balance between accuracy and assessment burden. The platform was perceived to improve clinical communication and facilitate shared decision-making. ConclusionsOur platform is likely to facilitate routine CLEFT-Q uptake, and this may have a positive impact on clinical care. Our free source code enables other researchers to rapidly and economically reproduce this work for other PROMs.