Dataset Information

What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (eg, symptoms, functioning) can inform patient management. However, patients and clinicians often have difficulty interpreting score meaning. The authors tested approaches for presenting PRO data to improve interpretability.

Methods

This mixed-methods study included an Internet survey of cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers circulated via snowball sampling, plus individual in-person interviews. Clinical importance was conveyed using 3 approaches (presented in random order): normal score range shaded green, concerning scores circled in red, and red threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Versions also tested 2 approaches to score directionality: higher = more (better for function, worse for symptoms) and higher = better for both function and symptoms. Qualitative data from online comments and in-person interviews supplemented quantitative results on interpretation accuracy, clarity, and the "most useful" format.

Results

The survey included 1113 respondents: 627 survivors, 236 clinicians, and 250 researchers, plus 10 patients and 10 clinicians who were purposively sampled interviewees. Interpretation accuracy ranged from 53% to 100%. The formats in which higher = better were interpreted more accurately versus those in which higher = more (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.58) and were more likely to be rated "very"/"somewhat" clear (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70) and "very" clear (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18-1.58). Red circle formats were interpreted more accurately than green-shaded formats when the first format presented (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.65). Threshold-line formats were more likely to be rated "very" clear than green-shaded (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.71) and red-circled (OR, 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02-1.46) formats. Threshold lines were most often selected as "most useful."

Conclusions

The current results support presenting PRO data with higher = better directionality and threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Cancer 2017;123:1848-1859. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published byWiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations aremade.

SUBMITTER: Snyder CF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5419857 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) are gaining more and more importance in the context of clinical trials. The assessment of PRO is frequently performed by questionnaires where the multiple items of a questionnaire are usually pooled within summarizing scores. These scores are used as variables to measure subjective aspects of treatments and diseases. In clinical research, the calculation of these scores is mostly kept very simple, e.g. by a simple summation of item values. In the medical literature, there is hardly any guidance for performing a refinements of questionnaires and for deducing adequate scores. In contrast, in psychometric literature, there are plenty of more sophisticated methods, which overcome typical assumptions made in traditional (sum) scores, however to the prize of more complicated algorithms, which might be difficult to communicate. When faced with the practical task to refine an existing questionnaire, there exist a clear gap of guidance for applied medical researchers. By this article we try to fill this important gap between psychometric theory and medical application by illustrating our methodological choices on the example of a clinical PRO questionnaire. METHODS:Based on our experiences with the refinement of the BCTOS, a PRO questionnaire to assess aesthetic and function after breast conserving therapy in breast cancer patients, we present the following general steps that we performed by refining the BCTOS questionnaire and its scores: 1. Refinement of the length of the questionnaire and the (item-factor) structure. 2. Selection of the factor score estimation method. 3. Validation of the refined questionnaire and scores with respect to validity, reliability and structure based on a validation cohort. RESULTS:Our step-step-step procedure helped us to shorten the current form of the BCTOS and to redefine the factor structure. By this, the compliance of patients can be increased and the interpretation of the results becomes more coherent. CONCLUSIONS:We present a step-by-step procedure to refine an existing medical questionnaire along with its scores illustrated and discussed by the refinement of the BCTOS. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Due to the character of the study (no intervention study), no registration was performed.

Project description:ObjectivesPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to measure the patient's perspective of their outcomes following healthcare interventions. The aim of this study was to determine the preferred formats for reporting service-level PROs data to clinicians, researchers and managers to support greater utility of these data to improve healthcare and patient outcomes.SettingHealthcare professionals receiving PRO data feedback at the health service level.ParticipantsAn interdisciplinary Project Working Group comprised of clinicians participated in three workshops to codesign reporting templates of summarised PRO data (modified Rankin Scale, EuroQol Five Dimension Descriptive System, EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) using a modified Delphi process. An electronic survey was then distributed to short list the preferred templates among a broad sample of clinical end users. A final workshop was undertaken with the Project Working Group to review results and reach consensus on the final templates.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe recommendation of preferred PRO summary data feedback templates and guiding principles for reporting aggregate PRO data to clinicians was the primary outcome. A secondary outcome was the identification of perceived barriers and enablers to the use of PRO data in hospitals. For each outcome measure, quantitative and qualitative data were summarised.Results31 Working Group members (19 stroke, 2 psychology, 1 pharmacy, 9 researchers) participated in the workshops, where 25/55 templates were shortlisted for wider assessment. The survey was completed by 114 end users. Strongest preferences were identified for bar charts (37/82 votes, 45%) and stacked bar charts (37/91 votes, 41%). At the final workshop, recommendations to enhance communication of PROs data for comparing health service performance were made including tailoring feedback to professional roles and use of case-mix adjustment to ensure fair comparisons.ConclusionsOur research provides guidance on PROs reporting for optimising data interpretation and comparing hospital performance.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The benefits of electronic patient reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaires have been demonstrated in many settings, including in hospitals and patient homes. However, it remains to be investigated how melanoma patients and their treating clinicians experience the electronic self-reporting of side effects and the derived communication. OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this study was to examine patients' and clinicians' experiences with an eHealth intervention for weekly monitoring of side effects during treatment with immunotherapy. METHODS:An eHealth intervention based on questions from the PRO-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) library was used and tested in a randomized clinical trial with patients receiving immunotherapy for malignant melanoma and clinicians at a university hospital in Denmark. On a weekly basis, patients reported their symptoms from home during the treatment via a provided tablet. The electronic patient reports were available to clinicians in the outpatient clinic. A mixed methods approach was applied to investigate the patients' and clinicians' experiences with the intervention. Data from patient experiences were collected in a short survey, the Patient Feedback Form. Moreover, a subset of the patients participating in the survey was interviewed about their experience. Furthermore, one focus group interview with clinicians was carried out to elucidate their views. RESULTS:A total of 57 patients completed the Patient Feedback Form, and 14 patients were interviewed. The focus group interview included 5 clinicians. Overall, patients and clinicians were satisfied with the tool. They believed it enhanced patients' awareness of side effects and increased their feeling of involvement. The patients reported that it was easy to fill out the questionnaire and that it made sense to do so. However, a minority of the patients expressed in the interviews that they did not believe that the health care professionals had seen their reports when they came to the clinic, and that the reporting did not lead to increased contact with the department. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, satisfaction with the eHealth intervention was high among patients and their treating clinicians. The tool was easy to use and contributed to greater symptom awareness and patient involvement. Thus, in terms of patient and clinician satisfaction with the tool, it makes sense to continue using the tool beyond the project period. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03073031; https://tinyurl.com/tjx3gtu.