Dataset Information

Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials can inform clinical care, but PRO interpretation is challenging. We evaluated the interpretation accuracy and perceived clarity of various strategies for displaying clinical trial PRO findings.

Methods

We conducted an e-survey of oncology clinicians and PRO researchers (supplemented by one-on-one clinician interviews) that randomized respondents to view one of the three line-graph formats (average scores over time for two treatments on four domains): (1) higher scores consistently indicating "better" patient status; (2) higher scores indicating "more" of what was being measured (better for function, worse for symptoms); or (3) normed scores. Two formats displayed proportions changed (pie/bar charts). Multivariate modeling was used to analyze interpretation accuracy and clarity ratings.

Results

Two hundred and thirty-three clinicians and 248 researchers responded; ten clinicians were interviewed. Line graphs with "better" directionality were more likely to be interpreted accurately than "normed" line graphs (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.01-2.38; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between "better" and "more" formats. "Better" formatted graphs were also more likely to be rated "very clear" versus "normed" formatted graphs (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.44-2.54; p < 0.001). For proportions changed, respondents were less likely to make an interpretation error with pie versus bar charts (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.2-0.6; p < 0.001); clarity ratings did not differ between formats. Qualitative findings informed the interpretation of the survey findings.

Conclusions

Graphic formats for presenting PRO data differ in how accurately they are interpreted and how clear they are perceived to be. These findings will inform the development of best practices for optimally reporting PRO findings.

SUBMITTER: Brundage M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5770492 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder.

Brundage Michael M Blackford Amanda A Tolbert Elliott E Smith Katherine K Bantug Elissa E Snyder Claire C

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation 20171102 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials can inform clinical care, but PRO interpretation is challenging. We evaluated the interpretation accuracy and perceived clarity of various strategies for displaying clinical trial PRO findings.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an e-survey of oncology clinicians and PRO researchers (supplemented by one-on-one clinician interviews) that randomized respondents to view one of the three line-graph formats (average scores over time ...[more]

PMID: 29098606

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused major shifts in students' learning strategies as well as teaching environments that profoundly affected the delivery of anatomy courses in medical schools. The Department of Anatomy at the University of Zagreb School of Medicine had a unique experience where the anatomy course in 2019/2020 was first taught in-person before transferring to an online course delivery, while the inverse happened in 2020/2021. The core curriculum, course material and examination criteria were the same in both academic years. The aim of the study was to determine whether course delivery affected students' perceptions of the course and whether it impacted students' engagement and success.MethodsThe students' perceptions of the course were assessed via an anonymous course survey (student evaluation of teaching, SET). The questions in the SET assessed the usefulness of teaching modalities rather than students' satisfaction. Most questions were in the form of statements to which students responded with their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale. Differences between responses in 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test. Effect size was estimated using Cliff's delta and association between responses was assessed using Spearman's r coefficient.ResultsStudents' perceptions were significantly affected by changes in course delivery. Students' success and engagement were higher in 2019/2020 when in-person teaching preceded online teaching. Furthermore, students' views on course organization and the usefulness of continuous assessment were more positive in 2019/2020. Finally, students' perceptions of the usefulness of online materials and activities were more positive in 2019/2020. All comparisons between the two academic years were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.0001 for all comparisons, Mann-Whitney test).ConclusionsStudents' perceptions of the anatomy course were dependent on the teaching environment they were exposed to at the beginning of the course. A transfer from in-person to online course delivery was more successful than vice-versa. This has important implications for structuring hybrid courses in medical education in the future.

Dataset Information

Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets