nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.10.2015

Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation

verfasst von: Michael D. Brundage, Katherine C. Smith, Emily A. Little, Elissa T. Bantug, Claire F. Snyder, The PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 10/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) promote patient-centered care by using PRO research results (“group-level data”) to inform decision making and by monitoring individual patient’s PROs (“individual-level data”) to inform care. We investigated the interpretability of current PRO data presentation formats.

Method

This cross-sectional mixed-methods study randomized purposively sampled cancer patients and clinicians to evaluate six group-data or four individual-data formats. A self-directed exercise assessed participants’ interpretation accuracy and ratings of ease-of-understanding and usefulness (0 = least to 10 = most) of each format. Semi-structured qualitative interviews explored helpful and confusing format attributes.

Results

We reached thematic saturation with 50 patients (44 % < college graduate) and 20 clinicians. For group-level data, patients rated simple line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding and usefulness (median 8.0; 33 % selected for easiest to understand/most useful) and clinicians rated simple line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding and usefulness (median 9.0, 8.5) but most often selected line graphs with confidence limits or norms (30 % for each format for easiest to understand/most useful). Qualitative results support that clinicians value confidence intervals, norms, and p values, but patients find them confusing. For individual-level data, both patients and clinicians rated line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding (median 8.0 patients, 8.5 clinicians) and usefulness (median 8.0, 9.0) and selected them as easiest to understand (50, 70 %) and most useful (62, 80 %). The qualitative interviews supported highlighting scores requiring clinical attention and providing reference values.

Conclusions

This study has identified preferences and opportunities for improving on current formats for PRO presentation and will inform development of best practices for PRO presentation. Both patients and clinicians prefer line graphs across group-level data and individual-level data formats, but clinicians prefer greater detail (e.g., statistical details) for group-level data.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry. Patient reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims. Federal Register, 74, 65132–65133.

Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., et al. (2003). Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: An ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the food and drug administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health, 6, 522–531.CrossRefPubMed

Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C., & Snyder, C. (2005). Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bruner, D. W., Bryan, C. J., Aaronson, N., et al. (2007). Issues and challenges with integrating patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute–sponsored clinical trials networks. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25, 5051–5057.CrossRefPubMed

Till, J. E., Osoba, D., Pater, J. L., et al. (1994). Research on health-related quality of life: Dissemination into practical applications. Quality of Life Research, 3, 279–283.CrossRefPubMed

Au, H.-J., Ringash, J., Brundage, M., et al. (2010). Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: The experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 10(2), 119–128.CrossRefPubMed

Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R., et al. (2001). Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of eastern cooperative oncology group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 1–13.CrossRefPubMed

Brundage, M., Bass, B., Jolie, R, et al. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20(7), 979–985.

Brundage MD, Feldman-Stewart D, Bezjak A, et al. (2005). The value of quality of life information in a cancer treatment decision. ISOQOL 11th annual conference, San Francisco.

10.

Snyder, C. F., & Aaronson, N. K. (2009). Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Lancet, 374, 369–370.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Greenhalgh, J. (2009). The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work, and why? Quality of Life Research, 18, 115–123.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 714–724.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Santana, M. J., Feeny, D., Johnson, J. A., et al. (2010). Assessing the use of health-related quality of life measures in the routine clinical care of lung-transplant patients. Quality of Life Research, 19, 371–379.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., et al. (2002). Health related quality of life assessments and patient physician communication. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 3027–3034.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Berry, D. L., Blumenstein, B. A., Halpenny, B., et al. (2011). Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: A randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29, 1029–1035.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

16.

PROQOLID (2012). The patient-reported outcome and quality of life instruments database. http://www.proquolid.org.

17.

Snyder, C. F., Jensen, R., Courtin, S. O., et al. (2009). Patientviewpoint: A website for patient-reported outcomes assessment. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 793–800.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

18.

Jones, J. B., Snyder, C. F., & Wu, A. W. (2007). Issues in the design of internet-based systems for collecting patient-reported outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 16, 1407–1417.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Snyder, C. F., Blackford, A. L., Wolff, A. C., et al. (2013). Feasibility and value of Patientviewpoint: A web system for patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice. Psycho-Oncology, 22, 895–901.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

20.

Brundage, M., Feldman-Stewart, D., Leis, A., et al. (2005). Communicating quality of life information to cancer patients: A study of six presentation formats. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 6949–6956.CrossRefPubMed

21.

McNair, A. G., Brookes, S. T., Davis, C. R., et al. (2010). Communicating the results of randomized clinical trials: Do patients understand multidimensional patient-reported outcomes? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28, 738–743.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., et al. (1993). The european organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Abernethy, A. P., Wheeler, J. L., & Zafar, S. Y. (2010). Management of gastrointestinal symptoms in advanced cancer patients: The rapid learning cancer clinic model. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, 4, 36–45.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

24.

PROMIS Software Demonstration (2012). http://nihpromis.org/software/demonstration.

25.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

26.

Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (1999). Analysing qualitative data. In C. Pope & N. Mays (Eds.), Qualitative research in health care (2nd ed., pp. 75–88). London: BMJ Publishing Group.

27.

(2014). AtlasTi, in, ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.

Titel: Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation
verfasst von: Michael D. Brundage
Katherine C. Smith
Emily A. Little
Elissa T. Bantug
Claire F. Snyder
The PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2015
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 10/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0974-y

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2015

Psychometric properties of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) in Chinese patients with prostate cancer

Can adult weights be used to value child health states? Testing the influence of perspective in valuing EQ-5D-Y

QUAlity of Life Assessment in Spina bifida for Adults (QUALAS-A): development and international validation of a novel health-related quality of life instrument

Health-related quality of life among children, young people and adults with esophageal atresia: a review of the literature and recommendations for future research

Validation of the Athens Insomnia Scale for screening insomnia in South Korean firefighters and rescue workers

Anxiety and insomnia as modifiable risk factors for somatic symptoms in Chinese: a general population-based study