IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0194180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary in patients with influenza-like illness (ILI)

Author

Listed:
  • John H Powers III
  • Elizabeth D Bacci
  • Nancy K Leidy
  • Jiat-Ling Poon
  • Sonja Stringer
  • Matthew J Memoli
  • Alison Han
  • Mary P Fairchok
  • Christian Coles
  • Jackie Owens
  • Wei-Ju Chen
  • John C Arnold
  • Patrick J Danaher
  • Tahaniyat Lalani
  • Timothy H Burgess
  • Eugene V Millar
  • Michelande Ridore
  • Andrés Hernández
  • Patricia Rodríguez-Zulueta
  • Hilda Ortega-Gallegos
  • Arturo Galindo-Fraga
  • Guillermo M Ruiz-Palacios
  • Sarah Pett
  • William Fischer
  • Daniel Gillor
  • Laura Moreno Macias
  • Anna DuVal
  • Richard Rothman
  • Andrea Dugas
  • M Lourdes Guerrero

Abstract

Background: The inFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) measure is a daily diary assessing signs/symptoms of influenza across six body systems: Nose, Throat, Eyes, Chest/Respiratory, Gastrointestinal, Body/Systemic, developed and tested in adults with influenza. Objectives: This study tested the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of FLU-PRO scores in adults with influenza-like illness (ILI). Methods: Data from the prospective, observational study used to develop and test the FLU-PRO in influenza virus positive patients were analyzed. Adults (≥18 years) presenting with influenza symptoms in outpatient settings in the US, UK, Mexico, and South America were enrolled, tested for influenza virus, and asked to complete the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14-days. Analyses were performed on data from patients testing negative. Reliability of the final, 32-item FLU-PRO was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha (α; Day 1) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; 2-day reproducibility). Convergent and known-groups validity were assessed using patient global assessments of influenza severity (PGA). Patient report of return to usual health was used to assess responsiveness (Day 1–7). Results: The analytical sample included 220 ILI patients (mean age = 39.3, 64.1% female, 88.6% white). Sixty-one (28%) were hospitalized at some point in their illness. Internal consistency reliability (α) of FLU-PRO Total score was 0.90 and ranged from 0.72–0.86 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 1–2) was 0.64 for Total, ranging from 0.46–0.78 for domain scores. Day 1 FLU-PRO scores correlated (≥0.30) with the PGA (except Gastrointestinal) and were significantly different across PGA severity groups (Total: F = 81.7, p

Suggested Citation

  • John H Powers III & Elizabeth D Bacci & Nancy K Leidy & Jiat-Ling Poon & Sonja Stringer & Matthew J Memoli & Alison Han & Mary P Fairchok & Christian Coles & Jackie Owens & Wei-Ju Chen & John C Arnold, 2018. "Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary in patients with influenza-like illness (ILI)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194180
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194180
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194180&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0194180?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194180. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.