Dataset Information

Impact of Adherence to Quality Measures for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes, Patient Satisfaction, and Treatment-related Complications.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Quality measures used in pay-for-performance systems are intended to address specific quality goals, such as safety, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness. Given the small number of narrowly focused measures in prostate cancer care, we sought to determine whether adherence to any of the available payer-driven quality measures influences patient-centered outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL), patient satisfaction, and treatment-related complications. METHODS:The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study is a population-based, prospective cohort study that enrolled 3708 men with clinically localized prostate cancer during 2011 and 2012, of whom 2601 completed the 1-year survey and underwent complete chart abstraction. Compliance with 6 quality indicators endorsed by national consortia was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to determine the relationship between indicator compliance and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) instrument summary scores, satisfaction scale scores (service satisfaction scale for cancer care), and treatment-related complications. RESULTS:Overall rates of compliance with these quality measures ranged between 64% and 88%. Three of the 6 measures were weakly associated with 1-year sexual function and bowel function scores (?=-4.6, 1.69, and 2.93, respectively; P?0.05), whereas the remaining measures had no significant relationship with patient-reported HRQOL outcomes. Satisfaction scores and treatment-related complications were not associated with quality measure compliance. CONCLUSIONS:Compliance with available nationally endorsed quality indicators, which were designed to incentivize effective and efficient care, was not associated with clinically important changes in patient-centered outcomes (HRQOL, satisfaction, or complications) within 1-year.

SUBMITTER: Sohn W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4945364 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Adherence to Quality Measures for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes, Patient Satisfaction, and Treatment-related Complications.

Sohn William W Resnick Matthew J MJ Greenfield Sheldon S Kaplan Sherrie H SH Phillips Sharon S Koyama Tatsuki T Goodman Michael M Hamilton Ann S AS Hashibe Mia M Hoffman Karen E KE Paddock Lisa E LE Stroup Antoinette M AM Wu Xiao-Cheng XC Penson David F DF Barocas Daniel A DA

Medical care 20160801 8

<h4>Background and objective</h4>Quality measures used in pay-for-performance systems are intended to address specific quality goals, such as safety, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness. Given the small number of narrowly focused measures in prostate cancer care, we sought to determine whether adherence to any of the available payer-driven quality measures influences patient-centered outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL), patient satisfact ...[more]

PMID: 27219634

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThere is scarce comparative effectiveness research on the new treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer. We aim to compare through Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) the impact of active surveillance, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and real-time brachytherapy, considering side effects (incontinence, irritative/obstructive urinary symptoms, sexual dysfunction and bowel symptoms) and physical and mental health.Materials and methodsProspective cohort of men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer (age 50-75y, T1-T2, and low risk including Gleason 3 + 4 in T1c) from 18 Spanish hospitals, followed up to 24 months. Treatment decisions were jointly made by patients and physicians (n = 572). The Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36v2) were administered through telephone interviews before and three, six, 12, and 24 months after treatment. To account for correlation among repeated measures, generalized estimating equation models were constructed. All analyses were performed with propensity score weights to solve treatment selection bias.ResultsThe PROMs completion rate at 24 months was 95.0 %. Active surveillance entails the fewest side effects, but with significant sexual (0.4 standard deviations [SD], p < 0.001) and physical health deterioration (0.5 SD, p < 0.001); and moderate mental health improvement (0.4 SD, p = 0.001) at 24 months. Compared with active surveillance, RARP presented greater urinary incontinence (p = 0.030), and IMRT and real-time brachytherapy worse bowel symptoms (p = 0.027 and p = 0.007) at 24 months.ConclusionsMost side effects of the new treatment modalities seem to be limited to short-term deteriorations, except for moderate-large urinary incontinence in patients who had undergone RARP and moderate bowel deterioration in patients treated with IMRT or with real-time brachytherapy. Furthermore, patients under active surveillance, IMRT, and real-time brachytherapy showed a moderate improvement in mental health.

Project description:Background & Aims:Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is known to have a negative impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL), even before progression to cirrhosis has occurred. The burden of NASH-related cirrhosis from the patient perspective remains poorly understood. Herein, we aimed to identify the burden of disease and HRQoL impairment among patients with NASH-related compensated cirrhosis. Methods:This targeted literature review sought first to identify the humanistic burden of disease from the perspective of patients with diagnosed NASH-cirrhosis and, secondly, to identify generic or disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess the impact of NASH-cirrhosis. Searches were conducted in bibliographical databases, grey or unpublished literature, liver disease websites, support group websites and online blogs. A quality assessment of specific PROMs was conducted. Results:Patients with NASH-cirrhosis are reported to suffer from lower HRQoL than patients with non-cirrhotic NASH and the general population with respect to physical health/functioning, emotional health and worry, and mental health. Thirteen PROMs were identified, of which 4 were liver-disease specific: CLDQ, CLDQ-NAFLD, LDQoL and LDSI. The most commonly used measures do not comply with current industry or regulatory standards for PROMs and/or are not validated for use in a cirrhotic NASH population. Conclusions:Patients with NASH-cirrhosis have lower HRQoL and poorer physical health than patients with non-cirrhotic NASH. However, the literature lacked detail of the everyday impact on patients' lives. Currently, a number of PROMs are available to measure the impact of the disease in patients with chronic liver conditions. The lack of studies that include qualitative insights in this population mandates further exploration and research. Lay summary:It is not well understood how having non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-related cirrhosis affects a person's everyday wellbeing and quality of life. Some research has been done with patients who have early stages of liver disease but not people with cirrhosis. We found that patients with NAFLD-related cirrhosis tended to have poorer health than patients without cirrhosis. But there was not very much information from patients themselves and there were no tools or questionnaires just for this group of patients.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhich PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.Results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.ConclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability.Prospero registration numberCRD42018086737.

Project description:BackgroundInfertility has a negative impact on quality of life (QoL) and well-being of affected individuals and couples. A variety of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to assess infertility-related QoL are available; however, there is a concern regarding potential issues with their development methodology, validation and use. This review aimed to i) identify PRO measures used in infertility interventional studies ii) assess validation evidence to identify a reliable, valid PRO measure to assess changes in QoL or treatment satisfaction in clinical studies with female patients following treatment with novel therapies iii) identify potential gaps in evidence for validity.MethodsA structured literature search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (accessed in September 2015) was conducted using pre-defined search terms. The identified publications were reviewed applying eligibility criteria to select interventional female infertility studies using PROs. Infertility-specific PRO measures assessing QoL, treatment satisfaction or psychiatric health, and included in studies by ≥2 research groups were selected and critically reviewed in light of scientific and regulatory guidance (e.g. FDA PRO Guidance for Industry) for evidence of content validity, psychometric strength, and patient acceptability.ResultsThe literature search and hand-searching yielded 122 publications; 78 unique PRO measures assessing QoL, treatment satisfaction or psychiatric health were identified. Five PRO measures met the selection criteria for detailed review: Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL); Fertility Problem Inventory (FPI); Fertility Problem Stress (FPS); Infertility Questionnaire (IFQ); Illness Cognitions Questionnaire adapted for Infertility (ICQ-I). None of the PRO measures met all validation criteria. The FertiQoL was the most widely used infertility-specific PRO measure to assess QoL in interventional studies, with reasonable evidence for adequate content validity, psychometric strength, and linguistic validation. However, gaps in evidence remain including test-retest reliability and thresholds for interpreting clinically important changes. While the FPI demonstrated reasonable evidence for content and psychometric validity, its utility as an outcome measure is limited by a lack of recall period.ConclusionThe FertiQoL and the FPI are potentially useful measures of infertility-related QoL in interventional studies. Further research is recommended to address gaps in evidence and confirm both PRO measures as reliable assessments of patient outcomes.

Project description:Hospital-level measures of patient satisfaction and quality are now reported publically by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. There are limited metrics specific to cancer patients. We examined whether publically reported hospital satisfaction and quality data were associated with surgical oncologic outcomes. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was utilized to identify patients with solid tumors who underwent surgical resection in 2009 and 2010. The hospitals were linked to Hospital Compare, which collects data on patient satisfaction, perioperative quality, and 30-day mortality for medical conditions (pneumonia, myocardial infarction [MI], and congestive heart failure [CHF]). The risk-adjusted hospital-level rates of morbidity and mortality were calculated for each hospital and the means compared between the highest and lowest performing hospital quartiles and reported as absolute reduction in risk (ARR), the difference in risk of the outcome between the two groups. All statistical tests were two-sided. A total of 63197 patients treated at 448 hospitals were identified. For patients at high vs low performing hospitals based on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores, the ARR in perioperative morbidity was 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4% to 5.7%, P = .02). Similarly, the ARR for mortality based on the same measure was -0.4% (95% CI = -1.5% to 0.6%, P = .40). High performance on perioperative quality measures resulted in an ARR of 0% to 2.2% for perioperative morbidity (P > .05 for all). Similarly, there was no statistically significant association between hospital-level mortality rates for MI (ARR = 0.7%, 95% CI = -1.0% to 2.5%), heart failure (ARR = 1.0%, 95% CI = -0.6% to 2.7%), or pneumonia (ARR = 1.6%, 95% CI = -0.3% to 3.5%) and complications for oncologic surgery patients. Currently available measures of patient satisfaction and quality are poor predictors of outcomes for cancer patients undergoing surgery. Specific metrics for long-term oncologic outcomes and quality are needed.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to describe changes in patient-reported functional outcome measures (PROMs) comparing pre-treatment and 12 months after radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy and active surveillance (AS).MethodsMen enrolled from 2010 to 2019 in the South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative registry a prospective clinical registry were studied. Urinary, bowel, and sexual functions were measured using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) at baseline and 12 months post-treatment. Higher scores on the EPIC-26 indicate better function. Multivariable regression models were applied to compare differences in function and extent of bother by treatment.ResultsOf the 4926 eligible men, 57.0% underwent RP, 20.5% EBRT, 7.0% brachytherapy and 15.5% AS. While baseline urinary and bowel function varied little across treatment groups, sexual function differed greatly (adjusted mean scores: RP = 56.3, EBRT = 45.8, brachytherapy = 61.4, AS = 52.8; p < 0.001). Post-treatment urinary continence and sexual function declined in all treatment groups, with the greatest decline for sexual function after RP (adjusted mean score change - 28.9). After adjustment for baseline differences, post-treatment sexual function scores after EBRT (6.4; 95%CI, 0.9-12.0) and brachytherapy (17.4; 95%CI, 9.4-25.5) were higher than after RP. Likewise, urinary continence after EBRT (13.6; 95%CI, 9.0-18.2), brachytherapy (10.6; 95%CI, 3.9-17.3) and AS (10.6; 95%CI, 5.9-15.3) were higher than after RP. Conversely, EBRT was associated with lower bowel function (- 7.9; 95%CI, - 12.4 to - 3.5) than RP. EBRT and AS were associated with lower odds of sexual bother (OR 0.51; 95%CI, 0.29-0.89 and OR 0.60; 95%CI, 0.38-0.96, respectively), and EBRT with higher odds of bowel bother (OR 2.01; 95%CI, 1.23-3.29) compared with RP.ConclusionThe four common treatment approaches for prostate cancer were associated with different patterns of patient-reported functional outcomes, both pre- and 12 months post-treatment. However, after adjustment, RP was associated with a greater decline in urinary continence and sexual function than other treatments. This study underscores the importance of collecting baseline PROMs to interpret post-treatment functional outcomes.

Dataset Information

Impact of Adherence to Quality Measures for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes, Patient Satisfaction, and Treatment-related Complications.

Publications

Impact of Adherence to Quality Measures for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes, Patient Satisfaction, and Treatment-related Complications.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets