Conclusion Our findings suggest that people with low literacy skills or learning disabilities are left out of the development of PROMs .
Background  Patient-reported outcome measures ( PROMs ) are intended to reflect outcomes relevant to patients .
They are increasingly used for healthcare quality improvement .
To produce valid measures , patients should be involved in the development process but it is unclear whether this usually includes people with low literacy skills or learning disabilities .
The COPD assessment test (CAT): response to pulmonary rehabilitation. A multicentre, prospective study
Background The COPD ( chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ) assessment test ( CAT ) is a recently introduced , simple to use patient-completed quality of life instrument that contains eight questions covering the impact of symptoms in COPD . It is not known how the CAT score performs in the context of clinical pulmonary rehabilitation ( PR ) programmes or what the minimum clinical ly important difference is . Methods The introduction of the  CAT score as an outcome measure was prospect ively studied by PR programmes across London . It was used alongside other measures including the St George 's Respiratory Question naire , the Chronic Respiratory Disease Question naire , the Clinical COPD Question naire , the Hospital Anxiety and Depression score , the Medical Research Council ( MRC ) dyspnoea score and a range of different walking tests . Patients completed a 5-point anchor question used to assess overall response to PR from ‘ I feel much better ’ to ‘ I feel much worse ’ . Results Data were available for 261 patients with COPD participating in seven programmes : mean ( SD ) age 69.0 ( 9.0 ) years , forced expiratory volume in 1 s ( FEV1 ) 51.1 ( 18.7 ) % predicted , MRC score 3.2 ( 1.0 ) . Mean change in CAT score after PR was 2.9 ( 5.6 ) points , improving by 3.8 ( 6.1 ) points in those scoring ‘ much better ’ ( n=162 ) , and by 1.3(4.5 ) in those who felt ‘ a little better ’ ( n=88 ) ( p=0.002 ) . Only eight individuals reported no difference after PR and three reported feeling ‘ a little worse ’ , so comparison with these smaller groups was not possible . Conclusion The CAT score is simple to implement as an outcome measure , it improves in response to PR and can distinguish categories of response
Conclusion Our findings suggest that people with low literacy skills or learning disabilities are left out of the development of PROMs .
Background  Patient-reported outcome measures ( PROMs ) are intended to reflect outcomes relevant to patients .
They are increasingly used for healthcare quality improvement .
To produce valid measures , patients should be involved in the development process but it is unclear whether this usually includes people with low literacy skills or learning disabilities .