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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

30 Scopus citations


Background The inFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) measure is a daily diary assessing signs/symptoms of influenza across six body systems: Nose, Throat, Eyes, Chest/Respiratory, Gastrointestinal, Body/Systemic, developed and tested in adults with influenza. Objectives This study tested the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of FLU-PRO scores in adults with influenza-like illness (ILI). Methods Data from the prospective, observational study used to develop and test the FLU-PRO in influenza virus positive patients were analyzed. Adults (18 years) presenting with influenza symptoms in outpatient settings in the US, UK, Mexico, and South America were enrolled, tested for influenza virus, and asked to complete the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14-days. Analyses were performed on data from patients testing negative. Reliability of the final, 32-item FLU-PRO was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha (α; Day 1) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; 2-day reproducibility). Convergent and known-groups validity were assessed using patient global assessments of influenza severity (PGA). Patient report of return to usual health was used to assess responsiveness (Day 1–7). Results The analytical sample included 220 ILI patients (mean age = 39.3, 64.1% female, 88.6% white). Sixty-one (28%) were hospitalized at some point in their illness. Internal consistency reliability (α) of FLU-PRO Total score was 0.90 and ranged from 0.72–0.86 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 1–2) was 0.64 for Total, ranging from 0.46–0.78 for domain scores. Day 1 FLU-PRO scores correlated (0.30) with the PGA (except Gastrointestinal) and were significantly different across PGA severity groups (Total: F = 81.7, p<0.001; subscales: F = 6.9–62.2; p<0.01). Mean score improvements Day 1–7 were significantly greater in patients reporting return to usual health compared with those who did not (p<0.05, Total and subscales, except Gastrointestinal and Eyes). Conclusions Results suggest FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive in adults with influenza-like illness.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere0194180
JournalPloS one
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General


Dive into the research topics of 'Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary in patients with influenza-like illness (ILI)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this