The Responsiveness, Content Validity, and Convergent Validity of the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW) Patient-Reported Outcome Measure

Objective Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW) is a patient-centred questionnaire that allows cancer patients to identify and quantify the severity of their ‘Concerns’ and Wellbeing, as opposed to using a pre-determined list. MYCaW administration is brief and aids in prioritising treatment approaches. Our goal was to assess the convergent validity and responsiveness of MYCaW scores over time, the generalisability of the existing qualitative coding framework in different complementary and integrative healthcare settings and content validity. Methods Baseline and 6-week follow-up data (n=82) from MYCaW and FACIT-SpEx questionnaires were collected for a service evaluation of the ‘Living Well With The Impact of Cancer’ course at Penny Brohn Cancer Care. MYCaW construct validity was determined using Spearman's Rank Correlation test, and responsiveness indices assessed score changes over time. The existing qualitative coding framework was reviewed using a new dataset (n=158) and coverage of concern categories compared to items of existing outcome measures. Results Good correlation between MYCaW and FACIT-SpEx score changes were achieved (r= -0.57, p≥0.01). MYCaW Profile and Concern scores were highly responsive to change: SRM=1.02 and 1.08; effect size=1.26 and 1.22. MYCaW change scores showed the anticipated gradient of change according to clinically relevant degrees of change. Categories including ‘Spirituality’, ‘weight change’ and ‘practical concerns’ were added to the coding framework to improve generalisability. Conclusions MYCaW scores were highly responsive to change, allowing personalized patient outcomes to be quantified; the qualitative coding framework is generalisable across different oncology settings and has broader coverage of patient-identified concerns compared with existing cancer-related patient-reported outcome measures.

The political economy of co-ordination challenges in the National Health Service: a postpositivist evaluation of diabetes policy and governance

The present PhD thesis develops and applies an evaluative methodology suited to the evaluation of policy and governance in complex policy areas. While extensive literatures exist on the topic of policy evaluation, governance evaluation has received less attention. At the level of governance, policymakers confront choices between different policy tools and governance arrangements in their attempts to solve policy problems, including variants of hierarchy, networks and markets. There is a need for theoretically-informed empirical research to inform decision-making at this level. To that end, the PhD develops an approach to evaluation by combining postpositivist policy analysis with heterodox political economy. Postpositivist policy analysis recognises that policy problems are often contested, that choices between policy options can involve significant trade-offs and that knowledge of policy options is itself dispersed and fragmented. Similarly, heterodox economics combines a concept of incommensurable values with an appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of different institutional arrangements to realise them. A central concept of the field is coordination, which orientates policy analysis to the interactions of stakeholders in policy processes. The challenge of governance is to select the appropriate policy tools and arrangements which facilitate coordination. Via a postpositivist exploration of stakeholder ‘frames’, it is possible to ascertain whether coordination is occurring and to identify problems if it is not. Evaluative claims of governance can be made where arrangements can be shown to frustrate the realisation of shared values and objectives. The research makes a contribution to knowledge in a number of ways a) a distinctive evaluative approach that could be applied to other areas of health and public policy b) greater appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of different forms of evidence in public policy and in particular health policy and c) concrete policy proposals for the governance and organisation of diabetes services, with implications for the NHS more broadly.