Skip to main content
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Download PDF
Download ePub

Patient interpretations of patient-reported outcome measures to assess bowel urgency: qualitative interviews in ulcerative colitis

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes volume 8, Article number: 54 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

Bowel urgency is an impactful core symptom of ulcerative colitis (UC). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires have been developed and used to assess the patient experience of this important symptom. The objective of this paper is to present evidence from qualitative research conducted to support the use and interpretation of select PRO questionnaires to assess bowel urgency related to the UC patient experience.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted with ten adults with a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of moderately to severely active UC. Interviews aimed to document patient interpretation of modified recall periods for the Urgency Numeric Rating Scale (Urgency NRS), two global assessments (i.e., the Patient Global Impression of Severity [PGIS] and Patient Global Impression of Change [PGIC]), and four items (Items 11, 16, 23, and 26) of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), and explore the patient perspective of meaningful change on these questionnaires.

Results

Both modified Urgency NRS versions (with 7-day or 3-day recall period) were interpreted as intended by most patients (≥ 88.9%), and slightly more than half of patients (60.0%) reported that the 7-day recall period was more relevant to their bowel urgency experience. Patients reported thinking of bowel urgency (≥ 80.0%) or bowel urgency-related accidents (70.0% of patients) when interpreting the global assessments and IBDQ items. Most patients reported a 1- to 3-point change as the smallest meaningful improvement that would be meaningful on the Urgency NRS (similar to findings on other questionnaires).

Conclusion

Adults with UC can understand and respond to the Urgency NRS with modified recall periods (i.e., 7-day or 3-day), interpret the conceptual content of the PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items to be inclusive of bowel urgency and bowel urgency-related accidents, and select answers representing meaningful improvements on the Urgency NRS, PGIS, PGIC, and IBDQ item response scales. These results further contribute patient-centered data to existing UC and bowel urgency research.

Introduction

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic idiopathic immune disorder characterized by uncontrolled and relapsing inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract and encompasses two major subtypes, ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease. UC is characterized by continuous inflammation of the innermost lining of the colon and the rectum. Within the United States, the prevalence of UC has been reported as 245.3 cases per 100,000 persons [1]. The primary symptoms of UC include frequent diarrhea with blood or pus in the stool, abdominal pain or discomfort, urgent need to have a bowel movement [2], fatigue, nausea, loss of appetite, weight loss, fever, and anemia [1, 3,4,5]. Bowel urgency, the sudden or immediate need to have a bowel movement, is a particularly bothersome and impactful symptom [2, 6,7,8]. Bowel urgency has been reported by patients as impacting social function, emotional well-being, physical function, and overall daily activities [2, 6, 7, 9, 10]. Bowel urgency, a symptom central to the patient experience of UC, is important to assess in UC clinical research. Bowel urgency-related accidents (i.e., accidents associated with bowel urgency) can be distinguished from other kinds of incontinence, such as passive incontinence (unawareness of the passage of stool) and fecal leakage (involuntary passing of liquid or solid stool) [11]. During UC “flares” (active or worsening symptoms), bowel urgency and bowel urgency-related accidents can become more frequent [12], which may lead to psychological distress that negatively impacts patients’ well-being [13]. Improvements in bowel urgency are associated with improvements in UC patients’ quality of life and other clinical markers of UC [14].

Research activities were conducted to develop and evaluate select patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires for the purpose of assessing bowel urgency in different contexts of use, including a single-item Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for urgency severity (Urgency NRS) [6], which was modified from the original 24-hour recall period item for the purposes of this work, two global assessments (Patient Global Impression of Severity [PGIS], and Patient Global Impression of Change [PGIC]), and four items of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) related to bowel urgency and accidents (i.e., Items 11, 16, 23, 26).

The primary objectives of this paper are to present qualitative results from patient interviews to (1) document patients’ interpretation and perspective on relevance of two potential recall periods to modify the Urgency NRS for the assessment of bowel urgency associated with UC in clinical practice; (2) document the relevance of the PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items to the patient experience of bowel urgency; and (3) explore the patient perspective of meaningful change in bowel urgency as assessed by the select PRO questionnaires.

Methods

Interview conduct

Ten 75-minute interviews were conducted via web-enabled teleconference with adults with a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of moderately to severely active UC on the Physician’s Global Assessment of UC Disease Severity between July 2022 and January 2023. Adults with UC were the target population for these interviews, and the sample size was determined based on the project’s overall goals and other pragmatic considerations.

Recruitment was conducted through an external recruitment agency that liaised with clinical sites to identify eligible patients. Patients needed to be 18 years of age or older, with a clinician confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe UC for at least 6 months, have experienced bowel urgency within the past 6 months, fluent in English, able and willing to participate in an audio-recorded telephone interview, not have had prior surgery to treat UC, and not have a condition or situation which might put the participant at risk, confound study results, or interfere with the participant’s ability to complete the activities of the study (e.g., cognitive impairment). Patients were recruited from four clinical sites located across the United States in Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and St. Louis, Missouri. All patients provided written informed consent to participate, as well as verbal consent at the beginning of the interview to be audio-recorded.

Trained qualitative interviewers followed a semi-structured interview guide to facilitate a discussion focused on patient interpretation of select PRO questionnaires and a hypothetical exploration of the amount of change that would be meaningful to patients on select PRO questionnaires. Descriptions of the questionnaires debriefed with patients (i.e., Urgency NRS, PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items) during these interviews are presented in Table 1 (please see supplemental material Table 1 for sample questions from the qualitative interview guide).

Table 1 Questionnaire descriptions
Full size table

Interviews aimed to answer the following research questions: (1) Can patients interpret the updated recall periods of the Urgency NRS ([i.e., 7-day or 3-day recall period]) as intended, and provide perspective on which recall period (i.e., 7-day or 3-day) is appropriate to assess bowel urgency in a clinical practice setting?; (2) Does patient interpretation of the PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items include bowel urgency and bowel urgency-related accidents?; and (3) What do patients consider to be a meaningful improvement on the Urgency NRS, PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items?

During interviews, patients were asked to complete a “think-aloud” exercise (to understand patient interpretation and relevancy of PRO questionnaires of interest) and a “meaningful change” exercise (to understand what patients consider to be a meaningful improvement in their symptom experience on the PRO questionnaires of interest). During the “think-aloud” exercise [15], patients read questionnaires aloud and described what each component meant to them and the thought process they used to select responses. This exercise was utilized in order to identify words, terms, or concepts that the patient may not understand or might interpret differently than intended. During the “meaningful change” exercise, patients were asked to pick the response option for each item on the questionnaires of interest that reflected their worst experience of the item concept (i.e., the “thing” the question assesses) and then explain the smallest amount of improvement on the response scale that they would consider to be a meaningful improvement in their experience of the concept. Patients were also asked to describe how meaningful improvement on the Urgency NRS corresponded with meaningful improvement on the PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items; specifically, patients were asked which PGIS, PGIC, and IBDQ response options correspond to the response they selected for their worst experience (PGIS and select IBDQ items only) and to the response they selected for the smallest meaningful improvement on the Urgency NRS.

Ethics approval was received by a centralized independent review board, Sterling Independent Review Board (IRB; IRB ID #9213), prior to interview conduct. All interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed and anonymized prior to data analysis.

Analysis

A codebook was developed prior to beginning data analysis based on the semi-structured interview guide. Each interview transcript was “coded” via an iterative process by which researchers assign descriptive labels to interview text (single words, phrases, or longer stretches of speech) based on the study’s research questions and goals [16]. The anonymized transcripts served as the source data and were coded using qualitative coding software (ATLAS.ti Version 9) [17, 18].

Analysis of patient responses was conducted to assess (1) patient interpretation of the modified recall periods for the Urgency NRS and relevance of a 3-day recall period and a 7-day recall period; (2) whether patients thought of bowel urgency and bowel urgency-related accidents when interpreting the PGIS, PGIC, select IBDQ items; and (3) patient perspectives on what constitutes an important and meaningful improvement in scores on the Urgency NRS, PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items.

Thematic analysis of all coded patient quotations relevant to each research question was conducted, and patients who reported similar themes were grouped together and reported by frequency. Analysis focused on patient qualitative descriptions of interpretations (i.e., what the wording of a question means to them in their own words) and of hypothetical meaningful improvements of concepts in terms of aspect (e.g., improved severity or frequency) or impact on their daily life.

Of note, patient responses were included in data analysis only if they provided sufficient information; patients who did not provide sufficient information for a given question were removed from the total denominator.

As sample size was determined based on project considerations, assessment of adequacy of the sample size via saturation analysis was deemed not critical to the analysis of this data.

Results

Patient characteristics

Table 2 presents the complete characteristics of the sample. A total of 10 patients completed interviews; patient ages ranged from 22.8 to 82.8 years (mean: 53.1 years [standard deviation (SD) = 16.9]). Five patients were female and five were male (n = 5/10, 50.0% each). Seven patients (n = 7/10, 70.0%) identified as White, with the remainder of patients identifying as Asian (n = 1/10, 10.0%), Black or African American (n = 1/10, 10.0%), or Hispanic (n = 1/10, 10.0%). Patients were recruited from one of four clinical sites: Chicago, Illinois (n = 5/10, 50.0%), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (n = 2/10, 20.0%), Los Angeles, California (n = 1/10, 10.0%), or St. Louis, Missouri (n = 2/10, 20.0%). Five patients (n = 5/10, 50.0%) were rated as having moderate disease activity by their clinicians and the remaining five patients (n = 5/10, 50.0%) were rated as having severe disease activity.

Table 2 Demographic and health characteristics of sample
Full size table

All patients (n = 10/10, 100.0%) met the inclusion criterion of having experienced bowel urgency within the past six months; of these, nine patients experienced bowel urgency within the past three months. Four patients (n = 4/10, 40.0%) reported experiencing bowel urgency within the last week at the time of screening, while six patients (n = 6/10, 60.0%) had last experienced bowel urgency more than a week before screening. At screening, six patients (n = 6/10, 60.0%) reported that they had not experienced bowel urgency-related accidents in the past four weeks, while four patients (n = 4/10, 40.0%) reported that they had experienced one to four accidents in the past four weeks. Patients were screened within one to 13 days prior to the day their interview was conducted.

Evaluation of the updated recall periods for the urgency NRS

Eight patients (n = 8/9, 88.9%) interpreted the 7-day recall period of the Urgency NRS as intended, and one patient (n = 1/9, 11.1%) did not interpret the 7-day recall period as intended; instead, they interpreted it to mean the last four days. No patients suggested rewording the 7-day recall period to make it easier to understand (n = 9/9, 100.0%). Eight patients (n = 8/8, 100.0%) interpreted the 3-day recall period as intended, and no patients suggested rewording the 3-day recall period to make it easier to understand (n = 8/8, 100.0%).

Half of the patients (n = 5/10, 50.0%) reported that both the 7-day recall period and 3-day recall period were easy to understand and answer. Of the remaining patients, two patients (n = 2/10, 20.0%) reported that the 7-day recall period was easier to complete and three patients (n = 3/10, 30.0%) reported that the 3-day recall period was easier to complete. Six patients (n = 6/10, 60.0%) reported that the 7-day recall period was more relevant to experiences of bowel urgency because bowel urgency lasts extended periods of time or because thinking back over a week is easier cognitively; and two patients (n = 2/10, 20.0%) reported that the 3-day recall period was more relevant to their experience because thinking back over three days is easier cognitively. One patient (n = 1/10, 10.0%) reported that both the 7-day and 3-day recall periods were relevant to their experience with UC. Lastly, one patient (n = 1/10, 10.0%) reported that neither the 7-day nor 3-day recall period were relevant to their experience with UC; they suggested providing a range of time for the recall period instead (i.e., the past two to three days and the past four to seven days).

Interpretation of PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items relative to bowel urgency and bowel urgency-related accidents

The majority of patients reported thinking of bowel urgency (≥ 80.0%) and bowel urgency-related accidents (≥ 70.0%) when interpreting the PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items. Many patients did not spontaneously describe bowel urgency or bowel urgency-related accidents in their interpretations (≥ 50.0%) of the PRO questionnaires, but rather as a result of a direct question from the interviewer (their responses were marked as “probed”). Please see Table 3 for the interpretation results and whether patients reported thinking of bowel urgency or bowel urgency-related accidents spontaneously or as a result of probing questions for all the PRO questionnaires.

Table 3 Patient Global Impression of Severity, Patient Global Impression of Change, and selected Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire Items interpretation summary table
Full size table

Exploration of meaningful change on the urgency NRS, PGIS, PGIC, and IBDQ items

For the Urgency NRS, most patients (n = 8/10, 80.0%) reported a 1- to 3-point change on the 0–10 scale as the smallest level of improvement that would be meaningful; three patients (n = 3/10, 30.0%) each reported a 1-point and 2-point change and two patients (n = 2/10, 20.0%) reported a 3-point change as the smallest level of improvement that would be meaningful. One patient each (n = 1/10, 10.0%) reported a 7-point change and 9-point change as the smallest level of improvement that would be meaningful. Patient-reported smallest meaningful score change on the Urgency NRS, frequency of patient reporting each point change, and exemplary patient quotes, are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Smallest meaningful score change on urgency numeric rating scale
Full size table

For the PGIS, eight patients (n = 8/10, 80.0%) reported a 1-point change as the smallest level of improvement that would be meaningful; the remaining two patients (n = 2/10, 20.0%) reported a 2-point change as the smallest level of improvement that would be meaningful. Patient-reported smallest meaningful score change on the PGIS, frequency of patient reporting each point change, and exemplary patient quotes, are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Smallest meaningful score change on Patient Global Impression of Severity
Full size table

For the PGIC, four patients (n = 4/9, 44.4%) reported the response option “A little better” to be the smallest improvement that would be meaningful, and the remaining five patients (55.6%) reported the response option “Much better” as the smallest meaningful improvement. Patient-reported smallest meaningful improvement by response option on the PGIC, frequency of patient reporting each response option, and exemplary patient quotes, are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Smallest meaningful improvement score on Patient Global Impression of Change
Full size table

For IBDQ Item 11, seven patients (n = 7/10, 70.0%) reported a 1-point change as the smallest level of improvement that would be meaningful, and the remaining three patients (30.0%) reported a 2-point change as the smallest level of meaningful improvement. For IBDQ Item 16, six patients (n = 6/10, 60.0%) reported a 1-point change as the smallest level of improvement that would be meaningful, three patients (30.0%) reported a 2-point change, and the remaining patient (10.0%) reported a 3-point change as the smallest level of meaningful improvement. For IBDQ Item 23, seven patients (n = 7/9, 77.8%) reported a 1-point change as the smallest level of improvement that would be meaningful; of the remaining two patients, one patient each (11.1%) reported a 2-point change and 3-point change as the smallest meaningful improvement. For IBDQ Item 26, six patients (n = 6/9, 66.7%) reported a 1-point change as the smallest level of improvement that would be meaningful, two patients (22.2%) reported a 2-point change, and the remaining patient (11.1%) reported a 3-point change as the smallest meaningful improvement. Patient-reported smallest meaningful score change on the select IBDQ items, frequency of patient reporting each point change, and exemplary patient quotes, are presented in Table 7.

Table 7 Smallest meaningful score change on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire Items 11, 16, 23, and 26
Full size table

Tables presenting the score changes or selected response option on the PGIS, PGIC, and IBDQ items that corresponded with the smallest level of improvement that was considered meaningful on the Urgency NRS are located in the supplemental material (supplemental material Tables 2, 3 and 4). This relationship was assessed to provide additional support for the qualitative understanding of change on the Urgency NRS by exploring corresponding meaningful changes on potential anchor items measuring related concepts.

Discussion

Existing research has shown that bowel urgency is a prominent symptom in UC and important and bothersome to patients; [7] absence of bowel urgency is strongly associated with improvement in patient quality of life [14]. Previous work demonstrates that bowel urgency is being assessed as a key indicator of quality of life and a clinical measure of UC in the regulated clinical trial setting, and the Urgency NRS has been shown to be an appropriate bowel urgency measurement tool in adults with UC supported by documented evidence of content validity [6, 19]. In recent UC research, the patient experience of bowel urgency has been assessed using the PRO questionnaires discussed in this work in two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of mirikizumab for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active UC (i.e., LUCENT-1 [20] [NCT03518086] and LUCENT-2 [21] [NCT03524092] trials). This work expands on existing qualitative evidence for the Urgency NRS and also documents new qualitative patient descriptions of meaningful change in their UC and bowel urgency experience based on PRO questionnaires intended to assess those concepts.

Our findings suggested that either recall period (i.e., 3-day or 7-day) may be used with this target patient population and that patients thought both recall periods were appropriate. Evaluating patient interpretation and relevance of different recall periods indicated that the Urgency NRS may be used in different contexts; longer recall periods (i.e., 3-day or 7-days) may be more appropriate for a clinical setting than the regular 24-hour recall, as clinical practice has less frequent visits, and may be used for the purpose of informing discussions and decisions between patients and healthcare providers. Additionally, recent research was conducted to evaluate the gaps in communication between healthcare providers and patients with bowel urgency and found that bowel urgency is underappreciated by healthcare providers, despite its substantial impact on patients [22]. This further demonstrates the need for bowel urgency-specific measures that are well-suited for use in the clinical setting.

Patients reported thinking of bowel urgency when responding to the PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items, therefore, these items may be appropriate as potential anchors in the estimation of meaningful change of bowel urgency in clinical trial context. Some patients spontaneously reported thinking of bowel urgency while interpreting these items; otherwise, patients were asked follow-up questions to confirm if bowel urgency was part of their interpretations. Regarding the IBDQ items, though Items 11, 16, 23 and 26 were included in this study because the concepts of measurement are closely related to bowel urgency, due to their focus on the assessment of IBD-related emotional and social functioning impacts and the two-week recall period, more patients reported thinking of bowel urgency as a result of probing rather than reported spontaneously. There were no trends in the other reported non-bowel urgency-specific symptoms or interpretations for these items, though interpretations for these items included thinking about abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation, or thinking about whether they left the house or had social engagements at all during the last two weeks. Patients reported more frequently thinking of bowel urgency than bowel urgency-related accidents when interpreting the PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items, which may reflect heterogeneity in the bowel urgency experience in the UC patient population. The lower frequency of reports of bowel urgency-related accidents among this patient population could be attributed to compensatory behaviors to avoid accidents, compared to a higher frequency of reports of bowel urgency. This is an important consideration for the development of a clinical outcome assessment measurement strategy and endpoints for clinical trials. These findings also provide insight into the patient perspective of meaningful change in the bowel urgency experience. Specifically, having patients report on the amount of change that would be meaningful to their daily lives and their UC experience across target questionnaires could be used to guide future UC research and improve healthcare providers understanding of the patient experience of UC. However, because the target questionnaires used different rating scales, meaningful change results should not be pooled or generalized across response scales. Additionally, this meaningful change exploration assumes equal distance between response options (which was not evaluated in this study); though some patient ratings of their “worst experiences” of the concept on a scale varied (e.g., the worst experience of the concept “starting” score for the meaningful change exploration for some was “Very Severe” and for others was “Very Mild”), we consider the patient’s qualitative description of their subjective experience to be trustworthy given each were able to explain why different responses were distinct and meaningful to them.

The results of this study must be interpreted in the context of certain limitations. This study’s sample size of N = 10 may limit the generalizability of the results of this work. However, despite the small sample size, the demographic characteristics with regard to gender, age, race and ethnicity, align with the wider UC population [23, 24]. Sample size adequacy was not assessed since sample size was determined based on pragmatic considerations; therefore, the exploratory nature of these interviews should be taken into consideration when interpreting results. Additionally, the results of the exercise to explore meaningful change to UC patients on these items was hypothetical in nature. Future work may be conducted to assess patient experience of meaningful change in a clinical trial setting to strengthen the preliminary findings of this hypothetical exercise. Although the patient perspective on meaningful change can be used to inform future research related to treatment efficacy and interpretation of scores produced by the questionnaires used in these interviews, results should be considered exploratory and may not be reflective of meaningfulness of actual changes in disease experience or questionnaires scores. Lastly, completion of each interview question with the entire sample of patients was not possible due to boundaries of the interviews, such as time constraints and the conversational nature of qualitative research (e.g., the interview guide is not a script), which, coupled with the small sample size, may also limit the generalizability of the results to the broader UC disease population.

Conclusion

Results of these interviews serve as preliminary evidence that adults with UC interpreted the Urgency NRS with modified recall periods (i.e., 3-day or 7-day) as intended, supporting use of either modified Urgency NRS version in clinical practice settings for patients with moderate to severe UC. Additionally, these results provide evidence that most patients, when asked specifically about bowel urgency and bowel urgency-related accidents, interpreted the conceptual content of the PGIS, PGIC, and IBDQ items to be inclusive of those concepts, which signals the relevance of these PRO items to the patient experience of bowel urgency. Furthermore, these findings provide additional support to demonstrate the connection between bowel urgency, other UC symptoms, and impacts by looking at the relationship between meaningful improvements on the Urgency NRS and other PRO items. Lastly, these results demonstrated that adults with UC were able to select responses reflective of meaningful improvements in the concepts assessed by the Urgency NRS, PGIS, PGIC, and IBDQ items, which contributes additional patient-centered data to the existing UC and bowel urgency clinical research space.

Data availability

The authors confirm that relevant data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or its supplementary materials]. Additional data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author [THG].

References

  1. Wang R, Li Z, Liu S, Zhang D (2023) Global, regional and national burden of inflammatory bowel disease in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019: a systematic analysis based on the global burden of disease study 2019. BMJ Open 13(3):e065186. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Newton L, Randall JA, Hunter T et al (2019) A qualitative study exploring the health-related quality of life and symptomatic experiences of adults and adolescents with ulcerative colitis. J Patient Rep Outcomes 3(1):66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0154-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ng SC, Shi HY, Hamidi N et al (2017) Worldwide incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in the 21st century: a systematic review of population-based studies. Lancet (London England) 390(10114):2769–2778. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32448-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dibley L, Khoshaba B, Artom M et al (2021) Patient strategies for managing the vicious cycle of fatigue, pain and urgency in inflammatory bowel disease: impact, planning and support. Dig Dis Sci 66(10):3330–3342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-020-06698-1

  5. Teich N, Schulze H, Knop J, Obermeier M, Stallmach A (2021) Novel approaches identifying relevant patient-reported outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases—LISTEN 1. Crohns Colitis 360 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/crocol/otab050

  6. Dubinsky MC, Irving PM, Panaccione R et al (2022) Incorporating patient experience into drug development for ulcerative colitis: development of the urgency numeric rating scale, a patient-reported outcome measure to assess bowel urgency in adults. J Patient-Rep Outcomes 6(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00439-w

  7. Dubinsky MC, Newton L, Delbecque L et al (2022) Exploring disease remission and bowel urgency severity among adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a qualitative study. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 13:287–300. https://doi.org/10.2147/prom.S378759

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Schreiber S, Panés J, Louis E, Holley D, Buch M, Paridaens K (2012) Perception gaps between patients with ulcerative colitis and healthcare professionals: an online survey. BMC Gastroenterol 12:108. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230x-12-108

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kornbluth A, Sachar DB (2010) Ulcerative colitis practice guidelines in adults: American college of gastroenterology, practice parameters committee. Am J Gastroenterol 105(3):501–523, quiz 524. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2009.727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Devlen J, Beusterien K, Yen L, Ahmed A, Cheifetz AS, Moss AC (2014) The burden of inflammatory bowel disease: a patient-reported qualitative analysis and development of a conceptual model. Inflamm Bowel Dis 20(3):545–552. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.Mib.0000440983.86659.81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kamal N, Motwani K, Wellington J, Wong U, Cross RK (2021) Fecal incontinence in inflammatory bowel disease. Crohns Colitis 360 3(2):otab013. https://doi.org/10.1093/crocol/otab013

  12. Kulyk A, Shafer LA, Graff LA et al (2022) Urgency for bowel movements is a highly discriminatory symptom of active disease in persons with IBD (the Manitoba living with IBD study). Aliment Pharmacol Ther 56(11–12):1570–1580. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sajadinejad MS, Asgari K, Molavi H, Kalantari M, Adibi P (2012) Psychological issues in inflammatory bowel disease: an overview. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2012:106502. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/106502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dubinsky MC, Panaccione R, Lewis JD et al (2022) Impact of bowel urgency on quality of life and clinical outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis. Crohns Colitis 360 4(3):otac016. https://doi.org/10.1093/crocol/otac016

  15. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ et al (2011) Content validity - establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 2-assessing respondent understanding. Value Health 14(8):978–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Sage

  17. Weitzman EA, Miles MB (1995) Computer programs for qualitative data analysis. Sage

  18. Lewins A, Silver C (2007) Using software in qualitative research: a step-by-step guide. Sage

  19. Dubinsky MC, Shan M, Delbecque L et al (2022) Psychometric evaluation of the urgency NRS as a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with ulcerative colitis. J Patient-Reported Outcomes 6(1):114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00522-2

  20. D’Haens G, Kobayashi T, Morris N et al (2022) OP26 efficacy and safety of mirikizumab as induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results from the phase 3 LUCENT-1 study. J Crohns Colitis 16(Suppl 1):i028–i029. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab232.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Efficacy and safety of Mirikizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results from the phase 3 LUCENT-2 study (2022) Gastroenterol Hepatol 18(7 Suppl 2):3–4

  22. Travis S, Potts Bleakman A, Dubinsky MC et al (2023) The communicating needs and features of IBD experiences (CONFIDE) study: US and European patient and health care professional perceptions of the experience and impact of symptoms of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izad142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rustgi SD, Kayal M, Shah SC (2020) Sex-based differences in inflammatory bowel diseases: a review. Therapeutic Adv Gastroenterol 13:1756284820915043. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756284820915043

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lewis JD, Parlett LE, Jonsson Funk ML et al (2023) Incidence, prevalence, and racial and ethnic distribution of inflammatory bowel disease in the United States. Gastroenterol 165(5):1197–1205.e2. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Guyatt G, Mitchell A, Irvine EJ et al (1989) A new measure of health status for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol 96(3):804–810

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Irvine EJ (1999) Development and subsequent refinement of the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire: a quality-of-life instrument for adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 28(4):S23–S27. Not in file

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. CADTH Common Drug Reviews (2014) Golimumab (Simponi) (Subcutaneous Injection): adult patients with moderately to severely active Ulcerative Colitis who have had an inadequate response to, or have medical contraindications for, Conventional therapies. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa (ON). Copyright © CADTH 2014

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the patients for their participation in the qualitative interviews and contribution to this research. The authors would also like to acknowledge the scientific contributions of the following individuals: Benjamin Banderas for his contributions to the design of the interview study; Siddharth Kakked for conducting patient interviews and contributing to the coding, analysis, and reporting of the data; and Emily Huang, Amanda Roussel, and Jalynne Costin for their efforts to complete patient recruitment for this study.

Funding

This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company (US).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada

    Vipul Jairath

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Canada

    Vipul Jairath

  3. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Theresa Hunter Gibble & Richard Moses

  4. Adelphi Values LLC, Boston, MA, USA

    Brittany Klooster, Leighann Litcher-Kelly, Marisa Walker, Madison C Bernstein, Kaelyn Rupinski & Megan McLafferty

  5. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Simon Travis

  6. Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Marla Dubinsky

Authors
  1. Vipul Jairath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theresa Hunter Gibble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Moses
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brittany Klooster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leighann Litcher-Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marisa Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Madison C Bernstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kaelyn Rupinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Megan McLafferty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Simon Travis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Marla Dubinsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

THG conceived of and designed the study, and B.K., M.M., and R.M. contributed to the study design throughout the study process. L.L.K., B.K., M.W., M.C.B., K.R., and M.M. contributed to collection and analysis of the data for the study. L.L.K., B.K., M.W., M.C.B., K.R., M.M., M.D., R.M., V.J. and S.T. contributed to interpretation of the data for the study. All authors had full access to the data; contributed to data interpretation; and provided critical review, revision, and approval of the manuscript. All authors accept responsibility to submit this manuscript for publication.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Theresa Hunter Gibble or Marisa Walker.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was received by a centralized independent review board, Sterling Independent Review Board (IRB; IRB ID #9213), prior to interview conduct. All patients provided written informed consent to participate, as well as verbal consent at the beginning of the interview to be audio-recorded.

Consent for publication

Not applicable; this manuscript [and/or its supplementary materials] do not contain any individual person’s data in any form (including any individual details, images, or videos).

Competing interests

THG and RM are employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company (US). MD, ST, and VJ are consultants previously and/or currently employed by Eli Lilly and Company (US). ST provided grants and/or research support to Eli Lilly and Company (US) and was also a speaker for Eli Lilly and Company (US). LLK, BK, MW, MCB and KR are employees of Adelphi Values; Adelphi Values received payment from Eli Lilly and Company (US) to conduct qualitative interviews, analysis, and report writing. MM was employed by Adelphi Values at the time this research was conducted.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Megan McLafferty: Author affiliation has changed since the time this research was conducted. Assigned affiliation is the institution of employment at the time this research was conducted.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jairath, V., Gibble, T.H., Moses, R. et al. Patient interpretations of patient-reported outcome measures to assess bowel urgency: qualitative interviews in ulcerative colitis. J Patient Rep Outcomes 8, 54 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00733-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00733-9