Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Original ArticlesMaintenance Dialysis
Open Access

Validation of a Core Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Fatigue in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis

The SONG-HD Fatigue Instrument

Angela Ju, Armando Teixeira-Pinto, Allison Tong, Alice C. Smith, Mark Unruh, Sara N. Davison, Juan Dapueto, Mary Amanda Dew, Richard Fluck, Michael J. Germain, Sarbjit V. Jassal, Gregorio T. Obrador, Donal O’Donoghue, Andrea K. Viecelli, Giovanni Strippoli, Marinella Ruospo, Delia Timofte, Ankit Sharma, Eric Au, Martin Howell, Daniel S.J. Costa, Samaya Anumudu, Jonathan C. Craig and Claudia Rutherford
CJASN November 2020, 15 (11) 1614-1621; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.05880420
Angela Ju
1Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
3Faculty of Science, Quality of Life Office, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Armando Teixeira-Pinto
1Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Allison Tong
1Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alice C. Smith
4Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Unruh
5Division of Nephrology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sara N. Davison
6Division of Nephrology and Immunology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Juan Dapueto
7Departamento de Psicología Médica, Hospital de Clínicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Juan Dapueto
Mary Amanda Dew
8Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Fluck
9Department of Renal Medicine, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael J. Germain
10Division of Nephrology, Renal and Transplant Associates of New England, Baystate Medical Center, University of Massachusetts School of Medicine, Springfield, Massachusetts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael J. Germain
Sarbjit V. Jassal
11Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregorio T. Obrador
12Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Public Health, Universidad Panamericana School of Medicine, Mexico City, Mexico
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Donal O’Donoghue
13Department of Renal Medicine, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrea K. Viecelli
14Department of Nephrology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
15Australasian Kidney Trials Network, Centre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Giovanni Strippoli
1Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
16Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marinella Ruospo
16Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Delia Timofte
17Department of Dialysis, Emergency University Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ankit Sharma
1Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eric Au
1Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eric Au
Martin Howell
1Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Martin Howell
Daniel S.J. Costa
18Faculty of Medicine and Health, Pain Management Research Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Samaya Anumudu
19Section of Nephrology, Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan C. Craig
20College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claudia Rutherford
3Faculty of Science, Quality of Life Office, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
21The University of Sydney, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Cancer Nursing Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Visual Abstract

Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Abstract

Background and objectives Fatigue is a very common and debilitating symptom and identified by patients as a critically important core outcome to be included in all trials involving patients receiving hemodialysis. A valid, standardized measure for fatigue is needed to yield meaningful and relevant evidence about this outcome. This study validated a core patient-reported outcome measure for fatigue in hemodialysis.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements A longitudinal cohort study was conducted to assess the validity and reliability of a new fatigue measure (Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis Fatigue [SONG-HD Fatigue]). Eligible and consenting patients completed the measure at three time points: baseline, a week later, and 12 days following the second time point. Cronbach α and intraclass correlation coefficient were calculated to assess internal consistency, and Spearman rho was used to assess convergent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was also conducted. Hemodialysis units in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Romania participated in this study. Adult patients aged 18 years and over who were English speaking and receiving maintenance hemodialysis were eligible to participate. Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis, the Visual Analog Scale for fatigue, the 12-Item Short Form Survey, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue were used.

Results In total, 485 participants completed the study across the United Kingdom, Australia, and Romania. Psychometric assessment demonstrated that Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis is internally consistent (Cronbach α =0.81–0.86) and stable over a 1-week period (intraclass correlation coefficient =0.68–0.74). The measure demonstrated convergence with Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue and had moderate correlations with other measures that assessed related but not the same concept (the 12-Item Short Form Survey and the Visual Analog Scale). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the one-factor model.

Conclusions SONG-HD Fatigue seems to be a reliable and valid measure to be used in trials involving patients receiving hemodialysis.

  • hemodialysis
  • fatigue
  • patient reported outcome measures

Introduction

Fatigue is a highly prevalent and debilitating symptom that affects 60%–97% of patients receiving hemodialysis (1), and it is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, mortality, depression, and impaired quality of life (2,3). The experience of fatigue may be unique in hemodialysis because the causes are complex and multifactorial, exacerbated by the burden of hemodialysis, anemia, uremia, depression, anxiety, and other comorbidities (1,4,5). Fatigue can severely limit patients’ physical and social functioning, life satisfaction, and ability to fulfill their roles and goals.

Through the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) initiative, which involved over 1300 patients and health professionals from >70 countries, fatigue was identified as a critically important core outcome to be assessed in all trials involving patients receiving hemodialysis (6–8). In order to facilitate the uptake of this core outcome in trials, the SONG-HD initiative sought to endorse a short yet meaningful measure of fatigue. Despite 18 different measures of fatigue that had previously been used in hemodialysis (9), none matched the characteristics of an ideal core outcome measure: short (fewer than five items) and assesses content deemed as important and meaningful by patients on hemodialysis, caregivers, and health professionals.

To establish a core outcome measure for fatigue, the SONG-HD Fatigue measure was developed using the Core Outcome Measures Effectiveness Trials methodologic framework and other relevant frameworks for developing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (10–12). This process involved patient input throughout all stages, both as research partners and participants. It included a systematic review of PROMs used to report fatigue in hemodialysis to identify all measures that had been used to evaluate fatigue (9); an international survey with patients receiving hemodialysis, caregivers, and health professionals to identify the critically important content and measurement dimensions of fatigue to include in a core outcome measure (13); a multistakeholder consensus workshop involving patients, caregivers, health professionals, researchers, and policy makers to discuss potential items (14); selection of items from existing measures for the initial measure; and pilot cognitive interviews with patients using a response model (13).

As the final phase in establishing SONG-HD Fatigue as a core outcome measure, this study aimed to assess the validity of its use in the hemodialysis population. We report the first psychometric evaluation of the core PROM for fatigue in hemodialysis and present the SONG-HD Fatigue measure.

Materials and Methods

Participant Selection and Recruitment

Participants were eligible if they were adult patients aged 18 years or over receiving maintenance hemodialysis for >6 months who could read and speak English and were able to provide informed consent. Patients were excluded if they were cognitively impaired, such that they would not be able to complete a PROM on their own. Through the authors’ professional network, we used convenience sampling to recruit patients across seven sites in the United Kingdom, three sites in Australia, and one site in Romania. All measures were administered in English across all three countries. A sample size of 450 participants was calculated to allow the estimation of the intraclass correlation coefficient with a precision of 0.05, assuming an expected intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.7 for the agreement between SONG-HD Fatigue measured at time point 1 and time point 2 (1 week apart). This sample size also allows us to estimate the Pearson correlation coefficient between the SONG-HD Fatigue measure and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F), with a precision superior to 0.07 (i.e., <0.07), for correlations stronger than 0.7. Ethics approval was obtained from East Midlands Nottingham 1, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Western Sydney Local Health District, and University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committees.

Measures

Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis Fatigue.

The SONG-HD Fatigue measure consists of three items that assess (1) the effect of fatigue on life participation, (2) tiredness, and (3) level of energy. These dimensions are assessed on a four-point Likert scale indicating increasing severity, ranging from zero (not at all) to three (severely). Patients respond on the basis of their experience of fatigue in the past week. An overall score for fatigue is obtained by summing the responses across the three questions, resulting in a scale ranging from zero (no fatigue) to nine (maximum fatigue). We also assessed the possibility of weighting each question differently in the calculation of the overall score. The final instrument is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Fatigue measure.

Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue.

This measure was selected to assess the convergent validity of the SONG-HD Fatigue total scores (14). Although FACIT-F has not been validated in the hemodialysis population, it assesses the construct of fatigue with multiple items and has been tested for psychometric robustness in the general population (15) as well as in other chronic conditions such as cancer and rheumatoid arthritis (15,16). We determined that FACIT-F had good face validity for hemodialysis because the items and wording most closely operationalized dimensions of fatigue as described by patients receiving hemodialysis (17). Owing to the similarity in construct, we hypothesized that the FACIT-F scores would be highly correlated to the SONG-HD Fatigue scores.

The Visual Analog Scale for Fatigue.

The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to assess the patients’ level of fatigue at the time of assessment. We anticipated a moderate to high correlation between SONG-HD Fatigue and VAS because both measures assess the same construct (fatigue) but with different recall periods and dimensions.

The 12-Item Short Form Survey Version 2.

This measure (the 12-Item Short Form Survey [SF-12]) was chosen because it is a relatively brief, simple measure, which is regarded to be of minimal burden to respondents (18). Although this measure assesses constructs related to fatigue, such as vitality and physical functioning, the physical and mental composite scores produced are not indicative of the same construct, and thus, we hypothesized that the scores will be moderately correlated.

Data Collection

Each participant was given the completed the SONG-HD Fatigue measure and a VAS at three time points (at time point 1: baseline; at time point 2: a week later; and at time point 3: 12 days after time point 2). At baseline, they were also asked to complete either SF-12 or FACIT-F. All measures were self-completed before the start of hemodialysis on each occasion to minimize the confounding effects of the hemodialysis process itself on experiences of fatigue. Although limited assistance was provided to facilitate the reading of the questions, no assistance was provided to aid the interpretation of the questions nor the retrieval of responses.

Data Analyses

A psychometric evaluation was conducted in SPSS Version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) and MPlus Version 8.3 to assess data quality (completeness of item- and scale-level data), reliability (internal consistency and test-retest between time point 1 and time point 2), and validity (convergent validity and exploratory known groups for dialysis vintage).

Mean scores of SONG-HD Fatigue were compared between countries to identify any systematic differences. Because of statistically significant mean differences, a post hoc decision was made to test and report psychometric properties separately by country with the following criteria.

Content Validity.

Previous work (9,17,19) was conducted to ensure content validity.

Internal Consistency.

Cronbach α ≥0.70 indicates adequate scale consistency.

Test-Retest Reliability.

Intraclass coefficient between time point 1 and time point 2 >0.70 indicates reliable stability.

Construct Validity.

For construct-convergent validity, Spearman rho >0.7 indicates high correlation, 0.3–0.7 indicates moderate correlation, and <0.3 indicates low correlation.

A confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken to examine the hypothesized one-factor structure of SONG-HD Fatigue for each country. A multigroup confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine whether the same structure of SONG-HD Fatigue held for each country by analyzing the complete dataset, with each country included in the model as a group but loadings and thresholds constrained to be equal across groups. The variance of the latent variable was fixed to one to identify the model. Adequacy of the model fit was determined on the basis of the following criteria: ratio of chi square to degrees of freedom less than three, the root mean square error of approximation <0.08, comparative fit index >0.9, and standardized root mean square residual <0.08.

Known Groups.

Hemodialysis vintage was selected as a grouping variable for an exploratory known-groups analysis as there is mixed evidence concerning the relationship between hemodialysis vintage and fatigue. Relatively more recent studies have found a significant association between these two outcomes (20,21), whereas earlier studies did not (22,23).

Scoring.

We assessed the possibility of using weights when summing the answers of the three questions because our previous work indicated greater importance of one dimension (effect of fatigue) above the other two (tiredness and level of energy) (17,19). We used a linear regression with the FACIT-F score as the dependent variable and the three questions of SONG-HD Fatigue as covariates. The regression coefficients rounded to the nearest integer were used as weights in the sum of the answers and compared with the score on the basis of the raw (nonweighted) sum of the answers.

Results

Participant Characteristics

In total, 485 patients from Australia (n=106), the United Kingdom (n=303), and Romania (n=76) participated; 289 (60%) were men. Most of the participants were aged from 51 to 70 years (322; 66%), and most were White (184; 79%). Also, the majority had been on hemodialysis for up to 5 years (405; 84%). The participant characteristics are presented in Table 1. The number of eligible, recruited patients and those lost to follow-up can be seen in Figure 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Patient characteristics at baseline

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Number of participants who were eligible, recruited, and lost to follow-up (n presented as United Kingdom; Australia; Romania).

Data Quality

Data quality was high, with a complete response rate of 93%, and mean scores were near scale midpoints for all three items. Scores spanned the scale range with no notable skew, and floor and ceiling effects were negligible (Supplemental Table 1). The main reason for missing data is losing patients to follow-up due to change in their hemodialysis sessions.

Mean Scores across Countries

The SONG-HD Fatigue mean scores for the United Kingdom were different from the mean scores in Australia (mean difference =0.93; P=0.004) and Romania (mean difference =1.38; P<0.001). There were no differences between Australia and Romania. Mean scores for all measures by countries are presented in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Mean scores for Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis Fatigue, the 12-Item Short Form Survey, Functional Assessment Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue, and the Visual Analog Scale by country at baseline

Psychometric Evaluation

Internal Consistency.

Cronbach α for the total SONG-HD Fatigue score demonstrated good consistency of the items for the United Kingdom (0.86), Australia (0.81), and Romania (0.83) (Table 3). None of the items had a significant effect on the Cronbach α when removed.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Reliability for the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis Fatigue and Spearman rho correlations between Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis Fatigue and the 12-Item Short Form Survey, Functional Assessment Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue, and the Visual Analog Scale

Test-Retest Reliability.

The intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.68, 0.74, and 0.72 for the United Kingdom, Australia, and Romania, respectively, indicating stability between time point 1 and time point 2 (Table 3).

Convergent Validity.

Convergent validity was assessed with FACIT-F in 244 patients and with SF-12 in 241 patients. There was a high correlation between the FACIT-F and SONG-HD Fatigue total scores for all three countries, ranging from −0.72 to −0.83. The SONG-HD Fatigue total scores had a moderate correlation with the mental and physical composite scores for all three countries, with correlations ranging from −0.30 to −0.53. The VAS scores for fatigue had a slightly higher and moderate correlation with the SONG-HD Fatigue total scores for all three countries (0.61–0.67). Table 3 presents the correlation values by country. We have explored the possibility of weighting each item of SONG-HD Fatigue differently when summing the answers. The linear regression predicting the FACIT-F scores gave more weight to item 3, followed by item 1 and item 2 (data not shown). However, the overall correlation of the weighted score was only slightly higher than the unweighted one (0.80 versus 0.79). Thus, we chose the more parsimonious approach of the unweighted sum.

Exploratory Known-Groups Validity.

There were five categories for hemodialysis vintage (<1, 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, and 16 or more years). Because of limited number of patients who had been on hemodialysis for >6 years, the categories were recoded, and two analyses were performed to assess exploratory known-groups validity: one with two categories (<1 and 1 or more years) and another with three categories (<1, 1–5, and 6 or more years). Patients who had been on hemodialysis for less than a year had higher SONG-HD Fatigue scores than those who had been on hemodialysis for more than a year (mean difference =0.66; P=0.004; 95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 1.10). Similarly, scores were significantly higher for patients who had been on hemodialysis for less than a year compared with those with dialysis vintage of 1–5 years (mean difference =0.67; P=0.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 1.29) but not when compared with those with dialysis vintage >6 years. There were no significant differences between groups by country.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses.

Results of the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis demonstrate that all of the goodness of fit indices supported the one-factor model for SONG-HD Fatigue with variance of fatigue and thresholds constrained to be equal across countries: ratio of chi square to degrees of freedom =1.89, P=0.02, root mean square error of approximation =0.07, standardized root mean square residual =0.04, and comparative fit index =0.99. Thus, we conclude that measurement of SONG-HD Fatigue is invariant across countries. Factor loadings were high for each item, ranging from 0.82 to 0.91 (Supplemental Table 2).

Discussion

Fatigue is a critically important outcome for patients receiving hemodialysis. The SONG-HD Fatigue instrument is intended to facilitate consistent, meaningful, and feasible assessment of fatigue in trials involving patients receiving hemodialysis. The instrument includes three items that address the severity of the effect of fatigue on life participation, tiredness, and energy—which are the three most important content dimensions of fatigue as indicated by patients receiving hemodialysis. The measure was developed through a multiphase, patient-centered approach that allowed for extensive input from patients, caregivers, and health professionals to ensure content validity. The psychometric evaluation found that the SONG-HD Fatigue measure satisfies criteria for reliability and validity in accordance with the recommended US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for measurement (24).

The psychometric properties were assessed by country because of the differences in means between the United Kingdom, Australia, and Romania. However, similar patterns of correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient and Spearman rho), equal factor loadings across countries, and the good model fit indicate similar measurement properties across countries. There are several possible explanations for these differences in mean scores. Cultural differences in the way patients respond to questions about fatigue are possible, as has been identified for other patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life, symptoms, and functional outcomes, in oncology and cardiology (25–27). It may also be related to differences in health care systems and practices or the population that completed the survey. We note that the majority of the participants in the United Kingdom had been on hemodialysis for <1 year, which may contribute to the higher mean score observed. Furthermore, the generalizability of our results beyond the English-speaking population is unknown. SONG-HD Fatigue was developed in English, and thus, we were able to recruit only patients who were able to read, speak, and understand English.

Fatigue in the hemodialysis population is complex, and the many possible causes are difficult to delineate. For this reason, it was difficult to identify definitive known groups a priori for comparison. However, we identified a grouping variable through the exploratory known-group analysis conducted with dialysis vintage to assess whether patients reported less fatigue the longer they were on hemodialysis (4,5,20). Similar to previous work, we found that patients who had been on hemodialysis for a shorter period of time had higher mean scores for fatigue. Also, our findings suggest that perhaps there may be a nonlinear relationship between dialysis vintage and fatigue. Although the limited data collection did not permit further investigation of this relationship, we will aim to include it in future work building on the findings of this study.

We acknowledge that we were unable to demonstrate the responsiveness of SONG-HD Fatigue due to the uncertainty around time points at which we could be certain that a clinically meaningful change in fatigue had occurred and the lack of an intervention expected to change fatigue. The SONG-HD Fatigue scores were similar between time point 1 and time point 3 (results are presented in Supplemental Table 3), and this was not unexpected. The measure asks the patients to report on the overall fatigue they experienced in the past week. As a result, the similar scores between two time points may be attributed to patients responding to the questions as instructed (to report overall fatigue in the past week), rather than focusing on fluctuations in fatigue. For the same reason, we were unable to use pre- and postdialysis as time points to assess responsiveness in this study, as responses to a measure with a recall period of 1 week are not expected to change from before to after one hemodialysis session. We will conduct further studies to assess responsiveness in a clinical trial for an intervention designed to improve fatigue. Further work will also be done to determine a minimally clinically significant difference, and to assess other psychometric properties, including crosscultural validity.

The SONG-HD Fatigue measure was developed to assess the average fatigue over a period of 1 week. Patients give higher priority to overall fatigue that can limit their day-to-day functioning and social roles (17,19). However, we recognize that postdialysis fatigue has been identified as an important symptom among patients receiving hemodialysis. Trials investigating the effects of an intervention on postdialysis fatigue may need to consider other measures. The Post-Dialysis Fatigue Index (28) was developed for this purpose, but a comprehensive psychometric evaluation has not yet been conducted. Ecologic momentary assessment of fatigue can provide a way to assess postdialysis fatigue with minimal risk of recall bias (1,29). Our future work may also examine the suitability of SONG-HD Fatigue for assessing postdialysis fatigue by testing an adjusted recall period.

SONG-HD Fatigue is a PROM that demonstrates evidence for validity for use in patients receiving hemodialysis. SONG-HD Fatigue is a three-item measure intended for patients to self-report fatigue in the past week and is suitable for use as a core outcome measure in hemodialysis trials. Items are summed to produce a total fatigue score. Implementing this short, validated, and relevant core outcome measure in all trials involving patients on hemodialysis will enable the standardized and consistent assessment of fatigue in a way that is meaningful for patients. This will contribute to the generation of evidence that will better support patients and caregivers in decision making by providing information about the effect of interventions on this critically important outcome of fatigue.

Disclosures

S. Anumudu reports other as medical director at DaVita home unit as part of employment at BCM, outside the submitted work. S. Jassal reports that she participated in a patiromer/hyperkalemia consultative meeting run by Otsuka on April 22, 2020. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

We acknowledge the PA Research Foundation and the Estate of the late Don and Lorraine Jacquot for funding data collection at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. In the United Kingdom, this research was funded by National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East Midland (NF-SI-0513-19135) and the Stoneygate Trust and supported by the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre.

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Jared Palmer for coordinating the United Kingdom data collection.

The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institutes of Health Research or the Department of Health.

Supplemental Material

This article contains the following supplemental material online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2215/CJN.05880420/-/DCSupplemental.

Supplemental Table 1. Data completeness and targeting.

Supplemental Table 2. Standardized estimates of factor loadings and thresholds for SONG-HD Fatigue items.

Supplemental Table 3. Correlation between SONG-HD Fatigue and VAS scores at time points 1 and 3.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • See related Patient Voice, “Fatigue While Undergoing Long-Term Hemodialysis,” and editorial, “Moving the Science of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Forward: Measuring Fatigue in Hemodialysis Patients,” on pages 1539–1540 and 1546–1548, respectively.

  • Received April 24, 2020.
  • Accepted September 3, 2020.
  • Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Jhamb M,
    2. Weisbord SD,
    3. Steel JL,
    4. Unruh M
    : Fatigue in patients receiving maintenance dialysis: A review of definitions, measures, and contributing factors. Am J Kidney Dis 52: 353–365, 2008 pmid:18572290
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Koyama H,
    2. Fukuda S,
    3. Shoji T,
    4. Inaba M,
    5. Tsujimoto Y,
    6. Tabata T,
    7. Okuno S,
    8. Yamakawa T,
    9. Okada S,
    10. Okamura M,
    11. Kuratsune H,
    12. Fujii H,
    13. Hirayama Y,
    14. Watanabe Y,
    15. Nishizawa Y
    : Fatigue is a predictor for cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 659–666, 2010 pmid:20185601
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. van Sandwijk MS,
    2. Al Arashi D,
    3. van de Hare FM,
    4. van der Torren JMR,
    5. Kersten MJ,
    6. Bijlsma JA,
    7. Ten Berge IJM,
    8. Bemelman FJ
    : Fatigue, anxiety, depression and quality of life in kidney transplant recipients, haemodialysis patients, patients with a haematological malignancy and healthy controls. Nephrol Dial Transplant 34: 833–838, 2019 pmid:29726909
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Artom M,
    2. Moss-Morris R,
    3. Caskey F,
    4. Chilcot J
    : Fatigue in advanced kidney disease. Kidney Int 86: 497–505, 2014 pmid:24694985
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Horigan AE
    : Fatigue in hemodialysis patients: A review of current knowledge. J Pain Symptom Manage 44: 715–724, 2012 pmid:22743156
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Evangelidis N,
    2. Tong A,
    3. Manns B,
    4. Hemmelgarn B,
    5. Wheeler DC,
    6. Tugwell P,
    7. Crowe S,
    8. Harris T,
    9. Van Biesen W,
    10. Winkelmayer WC,
    11. Sautenet B,
    12. O’Donoghue D,
    13. Tam-Tham H,
    14. Youssouf S,
    15. Mandayam S,
    16. Ju A,
    17. Hawley C,
    18. Pollock C,
    19. Harris DC,
    20. Johnson DW,
    21. Rifkin DE,
    22. Tentori F,
    23. Agar J,
    24. Polkinghorne KR,
    25. Gallagher M,
    26. Kerr PG,
    27. McDonald SP,
    28. Howard K,
    29. Howell M,
    30. Craig JC; Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology–Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative
    : Developing a set of core outcomes for trials in hemodialysis: An international Delphi survey. Am J Kidney Dis 70: 464–475, 2017 pmid:28238554
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tong A,
    2. Manns B,
    3. Hemmelgarn B,
    4. Wheeler DC,
    5. Evangelidis N,
    6. Tugwell P,
    7. Crowe S,
    8. Van Biesen W,
    9. Winkelmayer WC,
    10. O’Donoghue D,
    11. Tam-Tham H,
    12. Shen JI,
    13. Pinter J,
    14. Larkins N,
    15. Youssouf S,
    16. Mandayam S,
    17. Ju A,
    18. Craig JC; SONG-HD Investigators
    : Establishing core outcome domains in hemodialysis: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop. Am J Kidney Dis 69: 97–107, 2017 pmid:27497527
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Urquhart-Secord R,
    2. Craig JC,
    3. Hemmelgarn B,
    4. Tam-Tham H,
    5. Manns B,
    6. Howell M,
    7. Polkinghorne KR,
    8. Kerr PG,
    9. Harris DC,
    10. Thompson S,
    11. Schick-Makaroff K,
    12. Wheeler DC,
    13. van Biesen W,
    14. Winkelmayer WC,
    15. Johnson DW,
    16. Howard K,
    17. Evangelidis N,
    18. Tong A
    : Patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in hemodialysis: An international nominal group technique study. Am J Kidney Dis 68: 444–454, 2016 pmid:26968042
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Ju A,
    2. Unruh ML,
    3. Davison SN,
    4. Dapueto J,
    5. Dew MA,
    6. Fluck R,
    7. Germain M,
    8. Jassal SV,
    9. Obrador G,
    10. O’Donoghue D,
    11. Tugwell P,
    12. Craig JC,
    13. Ralph AF,
    14. Howell M,
    15. Tong A
    : Patient-reported outcome measures for fatigue in patients on hemodialysis: A systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis 71: 327–343, 2018 pmid:29198388
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Kirwan JR,
    3. Wells G,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Gossec L,
    6. d’Agostino MA,
    7. Conaghan PG,
    8. Bingham CO 3rd.,
    9. Brooks P,
    10. Landewé R,
    11. March L,
    12. Simon LS,
    13. Singh JA,
    14. Strand V,
    15. Tugwell P
    : Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 67: 745–753, 2014 pmid:24582946
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rothrock NE,
    2. Kaiser KA,
    3. Cella D
    : Developing a valid patient-reported outcome measure. Clin Pharmacol Ther 90: 737–742, 2011 pmid:21975345
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Wilson IB,
    2. Cleary PD
    : Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 273: 59–65, 1995 pmid:7996652
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Collins D
    : Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 12: 229–238, 2003 pmid:12769135
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Yellen SB,
    2. Cella DF,
    3. Webster K,
    4. Blendowski C,
    5. Kaplan E
    : Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage 13: 63–74, 1997 pmid:9095563
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Cella D,
    2. Lai JS,
    3. Chang CH,
    4. Peterman A,
    5. Slavin M
    : Fatigue in cancer patients compared with fatigue in the general United States population. Cancer 94: 528–538, 2002 pmid:11900238
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Cella D,
    2. Yount S,
    3. Sorensen M,
    4. Chartash E,
    5. Sengupta N,
    6. Grober J
    : Validation of the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy fatigue scale relative to other instrumentation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 32: 811–819, 2005 pmid:15868614
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Ju A,
    2. Unruh M,
    3. Davison S,
    4. Dapueto J,
    5. Dew MA,
    6. Fluck R,
    7. Germain M,
    8. Jassal SV,
    9. Obrador G,
    10. O’Donoghue D,
    11. Josephson MA,
    12. Craig JC,
    13. Viecelli A,
    14. O’Lone E,
    15. Hanson CS,
    16. Manns B,
    17. Sautenet B,
    18. Howell M,
    19. Reddy B,
    20. Wilkie C,
    21. Rutherford C,
    22. Tong A; SONG-HD Fatigue Workshop Collaborators
    : Establishing a core outcome measure for fatigue in patients on hemodialysis: A Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop report. Am J Kidney Dis 72: 104–112, 2018 pmid:29551585
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    OPTUM: SF-12v2 Health Survey. Available at: https://www.optum.com/solutions/life-sciences/answer-research/patient-insights/sf-health-surveys/sf-12v2-health-survey.html. Accessed January 28, 2018
  17. ↵
    1. Ju A,
    2. Unruh M,
    3. Davison SN,
    4. Dapueto J,
    5. Dew MA,
    6. Fluck R,
    7. Germain M,
    8. Jassal SV,
    9. Obrador G,
    10. O’Donoghue D,
    11. Howell M,
    12. O’Lone E,
    13. Shen JI,
    14. Craig JC,
    15. Tong A; SONG-HD Initiative
    : Identifying dimensions of fatigue in haemodialysis important to patients, caregivers and health professionals: An international survey. Nephrology (Carlton) 25: 239–247, 2020
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Jhamb M,
    2. Pike F,
    3. Ramer S,
    4. Argyropoulos C,
    5. Steel J,
    6. Dew MA,
    7. Weisbord SD,
    8. Weissfeld L,
    9. Unruh M
    : Impact of fatigue on outcomes in the hemodialysis (HEMO) study. Am J Nephrol 33: 515–523, 2011 pmid:21555875
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Karadag E,
    2. Kilic SP,
    3. Metin O
    : Relationship between fatigue and social support in hemodialysis patients. Nurs Health Sci 15: 164–171, 2013 pmid:23552015
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Brunier GM,
    2. Graydon J
    : The influence of physical activity on fatigue in patients with ESRD on hemodialysis. ANNA J 20: 457–461, 1993
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. McCann K,
    2. Boore JRP
    : Fatigue in persons with renal failure who require maintenance haemodialysis. J Adv Nurs 32: 1132–1142, 2000 pmid:11114998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
    , US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4: 79, 2006 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-791477-7525-4-79
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Fischer MJ,
    2. Inoue K,
    3. Matsuda A,
    4. Kroep JR,
    5. Nagai S,
    6. Tozuka K,
    7. Momiyama M,
    8. Weijl NI,
    9. Langemeijer-Bosman D,
    10. Ramai SRS,
    11. Nortier JWR,
    12. Putter H,
    13. Yamaoka K,
    14. Kubota K,
    15. Kobayashi K,
    16. Kaptein AA
    : Cross-cultural comparison of breast cancer patients’ quality of life in the Netherlands and Japan. Breast Cancer Res Treat 166: 459–471, 2017 pmid:28762012
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. King MT,
    2. Stockler MR,
    3. O’Connell RL,
    4. Buizen L,
    5. Joly F,
    6. Lanceley A,
    7. Hilpert F,
    8. Okamoto A,
    9. Aotani E,
    10. Bryce J,
    11. Donnellan P,
    12. Oza A,
    13. Avall-Lundqvist E,
    14. Berek JS,
    15. Sehouli J,
    16. Feeney A,
    17. Berton-Rigaud D,
    18. Costa DSJ,
    19. Friedlander ML; GCIG Symptom Benefit group
    : Measuring what matters MOST: Validation of the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment, a patient-reported outcome measure of symptom burden and impact of chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer. Qual Life Res 27: 59–74, 2018 pmid:29248998
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Park J,
    2. Johantgen ME
    : A cross-cultural comparison of symptom reporting and symptom clusters in heart failure. J Transcult Nurs 28: 372–380, 2017 pmid:27225884
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Sklar AH,
    2. Riesenberg LA,
    3. Silber AK,
    4. Ahmed W,
    5. Ali A
    : Postdialysis fatigue. Am J Kidney Dis 28: 732–736, 1996 pmid:9158212
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Abdel-Kader K,
    2. Jhamb M,
    3. Mandich LA,
    4. Yabes J,
    5. Keene RM,
    6. Beach S,
    7. Buysse DJ,
    8. Unruh ML
    : Ecological momentary assessment of fatigue, sleepiness, and exhaustion in ESKD. BMC Nephrol 15: 29, 2014 pmid:24502751
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 15 (11)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 15, Issue 11
November 06, 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Validation of a Core Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Fatigue in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Validation of a Core Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Fatigue in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis
Angela Ju, Armando Teixeira-Pinto, Allison Tong, Alice C. Smith, Mark Unruh, Sara N. Davison, Juan Dapueto, Mary Amanda Dew, Richard Fluck, Michael J. Germain, Sarbjit V. Jassal, Gregorio T. Obrador, Donal O’Donoghue, Andrea K. Viecelli, Giovanni Strippoli, Marinella Ruospo, Delia Timofte, Ankit Sharma, Eric Au, Martin Howell, Daniel S.J. Costa, Samaya Anumudu, Jonathan C. Craig, Claudia Rutherford
CJASN Nov 2020, 15 (11) 1614-1621; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05880420

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Validation of a Core Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Fatigue in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis
Angela Ju, Armando Teixeira-Pinto, Allison Tong, Alice C. Smith, Mark Unruh, Sara N. Davison, Juan Dapueto, Mary Amanda Dew, Richard Fluck, Michael J. Germain, Sarbjit V. Jassal, Gregorio T. Obrador, Donal O’Donoghue, Andrea K. Viecelli, Giovanni Strippoli, Marinella Ruospo, Delia Timofte, Ankit Sharma, Eric Au, Martin Howell, Daniel S.J. Costa, Samaya Anumudu, Jonathan C. Craig, Claudia Rutherford
CJASN Nov 2020, 15 (11) 1614-1621; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05880420
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosures
    • Funding
    • Acknowledgments
    • Supplemental Material
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

Original Articles

  • Digital Applications Targeting Medication Safety in Ambulatory High-Risk CKD Patients
  • Ramipril and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis
  • Provider Perception of Frailty Is Associated with Dialysis Decision Making in Patients with Advanced CKD
Show more Original Articles

Maintenance Dialysis

  • Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Dialysis-Related Symptoms in Individuals Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis
  • Development and Content Validity of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Home Dialysis
  • Comparative Effects of Etelcalcetide and Maxacalcitol on Serum Calcification Propensity in Secondary Hyperparathyroidism
Show more Maintenance Dialysis

Cited By...

  • Fatigue While Undergoing Long-Term Hemodialysis
  • Moving the Science of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Forward: Measuring Fatigue in Hemodialysis Patients
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • Fatigue While Undergoing Long-Term Hemodialysis
  • Moving the Science of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Forward
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • hemodialysis
  • fatigue
  • Patient Reported Outcome Measures

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire