Patient priorities in relation to surgery for gastric cancer: qualitative interviews with gastric cancer surgery patients to inform the development of a core outcome set.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
The reporting of outcomes in surgical trials for gastric cancer is inconsistent. The GASTROS study (GAstric Cancer Surgery TRials Reported Outcome Standardisation) aims to address this by developing a core outcome set (COS) for use in all future trials within this field. A COS should reflect the views of all stakeholders, including patients. We undertook a series of interviews to identify outcomes important to patients which would be considered for inclusion in a COS.Setting
All interviews took place within the UK. Interviews were carried out face-to-face at hospitals and cancer support centres or via the telephone.Participants
Twenty participants at varying stages of recovery following surgery for gastric cancer with curative intent.Design
Qualitative design using semistructured interviews, supported by an interview guide which was iteratively modified; thematic analysis was used to explore patient priorities.Results
Six themes enveloping 38 outcomes were identified; surviving and controlling cancer, technical aspects of surgery, adverse events from surgery, recovering from surgery, long-term problems following surgery and long-term life impact of surgery. The 'most important' patient priority was to be 'cured of cancer'.Conclusion
Surgical trials for gastric cancer should consider broader priorities of patients when choosing which outcomes to report. This study highlighted the importance of longer-term outcomes such as cancer survival. Outcomes identified in this study will be used to inform an international Delphi survey to develop a COS in this field.
SUBMITTER: Alkhaffaf B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7044961 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of the study was to explore core outcome set (COS) developers' experiences of their work to inform methodological guidance on COS development and identify areas for future methodological research.Study design and settingSemistructured, audio-recorded interviews with a purposive sample of 32 COS developers. Analysis of transcribed interviews was informed by the constant comparative method and framework analysis.ResultsDevelopers found COS development to be challenging, particularly in relation to patient participation and accessing funding. Their accounts raised fundamental questions about the status of COS development and whether it is consultation or research. Developers emphasized how the absence of guidance had affected their work and identified areas where guidance or evidence about COS development would be useful including, patient participation, ethics, international development, and implementation. They particularly wanted guidance on systematic reviews, Delphi, and consensus meetings.ConclusionThe findings raise important questions about the funding, status, and process of COS development and indicate ways that it could be strengthened. Guidance could help developers to strengthen their work, but over specification could threaten quality in COS development. Guidance should therefore highlight common issues to consider and encourage tailoring of COS development to the context and circumstances of particular COS.
| S-EPMC5513443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To explore participants' views of Delphi surveys in core outcome set (COS) development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:Patients and health professionals (n=24) from seven recently concluded COS studies that had involved a Delphi survey took part in semistructured qualitative interviews (telephone and email exchange). Interviews explored participants' understanding of COS and their experiences of the Delphi survey. Analysis was thematic. RESULTS:Several interviewees had previously participated in two or more COS or Delphi surveys. Those with multiple experiences of participation generally understood the purpose of COS and were satisfied with the Delphi survey. However, some interviewees who were first-time participants struggled to understand the purpose of COS and aspects of the Delphi survey, which limited their contribution and satisfaction with the study. Interviewees also differed in how they interpreted and subsequently used the written documentation provided to COS participants. Some interviewees wanted guidance regarding whose perspective to take into account when scoring outcomes and on how to use the scoring system. Interviewees reported being motivated to take part by the international and expert consensus aspects of the Delphi survey. A few interviewees reported experiencing either positive or negative emotional impacts arising from when they reviewed outcomes and stakeholder feedback. CONCLUSION:This study identifies important information that should be communicated to COS Delphi study participants. It also indicates the importance of communicating about COS Delphi studies in ways that are accessible and salient to participants, to enhance their experience of participation and make the process more meaningful for all.
| S-EPMC6887093 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies of prognostication in advanced cancer use a wide range of outcomes and outcome measures, making it difficult to compare these studies and their findings. Core Outcome Sets facilitate comparability and standardisation between studies and would benefit future prognostic research. This qualitative study, the second step in a wider study developing such a Core Outcome Set, aimed to explore the perceptions and experiences of patients with advanced cancer, informal caregivers, and clinicians regarding the potential outcomes to assess the impact of prognostication.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with patients living with advanced cancer (n = 8), informal caregivers (n = 10), and clinicians (n = 10) recruited from palliative care services across three sites in London, United Kingdom. Interviews were conducted in-person, via telephone, or video conferencing, and were audio-recorded. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Findings were compared with outcomes identified in a previously published systematic review.ResultsWe identified 33 outcomes, 16 of which were not previously reported in the literature. We grouped these outcomes into 10 domains, nine from the COMET taxonomy, plus a tenth domain (spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing) which we added further to the previous systematic review. These findings highlighted discrepancies between the priorities of existing research and those of stakeholders. Novel outcomes highlight the more personal and emotional impacts of prognostication, whilst other outcomes confirm the relevance of survival length, depression, anxiety, pain, hope dynamics, emotional distress, and the quality of patient-clinician relationships for assessing the impact of prognostication.ConclusionsThis study offers valuable insights into outcomes which matter to key stakeholders, particularly patients and informal caregivers, highlights discrepancies between their priorities and those identified in previous studies, and underscores the need for a patient-centred approach in research and clinical practice in prognostication in advanced cancer. This work will contribute to developing a Core Outcome Set for assessing the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer.
| S-EPMC11239020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe incidence of anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) has increased threefold in the last 30 years. Initial treatment is chemoradiotherapy, associated with short-term and long-term side effects. Future therapy innovations aim to reduce morbidity in treatment of early tumours while maintaining treatment efficacy, and to escalate treatment intensity in locally advanced tumours with acceptable quality of life (QoL). However, all phase III randomised controlled trials to-date have utilised different primary outcomes, which hinders evidence synthesis and presents challenges to the selection of optimal outcomes in future trials. No trial comprehensively assessed long-term side effects and QoL, suggesting outcomes reflecting issues important to patients are under-represented. This project aims to determine the priority outcomes for all stakeholders and reach agreement on a standardised core set of outcomes to be measured and reported on in all future ASCC trials.Methods and analysisA systematic review will identify all outcomes reported in trials and observational studies of chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for ASCC. Outcomes of importance to patients will be identified through patient interviews. The long list of outcomes generated from the systematic review and interviews will be used to create a two-round Delphi process, including key stakeholders (patients and healthcare professionals). The results of the Delphi will be discussed at a face-to-face consensus meeting. Discussion will focus on outcomes that did not achieve consensus through the Delphi process and conclude with anonymous voting to ratify the final core outcome set (COS).Ethics and disseminationThe final COS will feed directly into the PersonaLising Anal cancer radioTherapy dOse (PLATO) national anal cancer trials and the Association of coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) supported national anal cancer database. Utilisation of the COS will increase the relevance of research output to all stakeholders and increase the capacity for data synthesis between trials. This study has ethical approval and is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative.Trial registration numberPROSPERO registration ID: CRD42016036540.
| S-EPMC5719280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are standard measures in the assessment of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment, but the range and complexity of available PROMs may be hindering the synthesis of evidence. This systematic review aimed to: (i) summarize PROMs in studies of CRC surgery and (ii) categorize PRO content to inform the future development of an agreed minimum 'core' outcome set to be measured in all trials.MethodAll PROMs were identified from a systematic review of prospective CRC surgical studies. The type and frequency of PROMs in each study were summarized, and the number of items documented. All items were extracted and independently categorized by content by two researchers into 'health domains', and discrepancies were discussed with a patient and expert. Domain popularity and the distribution of items were summarized.ResultsFifty-eight different PROMs were identified from the 104 included studies. There were 23 generic, four cancer-specific, 11 disease-specific and 16 symptom-specific questionnaires, and three ad hoc measures. The most frequently used PROM was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (50 studies), and most PROMs (n = 40, 69%) were used in only one study. Detailed examination of the 50 available measures identified 917 items, which were categorized into 51 domains. The domains comprising the most items were 'anxiety' (n = 85, 9.2%), 'fatigue' (n = 67, 7.3%) and 'physical function' (n = 63, 6.9%). No domains were included in all PROMs.ConclusionThere is major heterogeneity of PRO measurement and a wide variation in content assessed in the PROMs available for CRC. A core outcome set will improve PRO outcome measurement and reporting in CRC trials.
| S-EPMC4744711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes assessed across studies of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Only a small number of studies have measured patient-reported outcomes or included patients in the selection of outcomes that are meaningful to them. This study was a cross-sectional, qualitative study of 15 patient participants conducted to inform a core outcome set. A core outcome set is an approach to facilitate standardisation in outcome reporting, allowing direct comparison of outcomes across studies to enhance understanding of impacts and potential harms. The aim of this study was to incorporate the patient perspective in the development of a core outcome set by eliciting a detailed understanding of outcomes of importance to patients. Data were collected via online, semi-structured interviews using a novel method informed by co-design and the nominal group technique. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Outcomes elicited from patient stakeholder interviews highlighted several under-explored areas for future research. This includes the role of grief and loss in increased risk couples, the role of empowerment in conceptualising the utility of RGCS, the impact of societal context and barriers that contribute to negative experiences, and the role of genetic counselling in ensuring that information needs are met and informed choice facilitated as RGCS becomes increasingly routine. Future research should focus on incorporating outcomes that accurately reflect patient needs and experience.
| S-EPMC9409855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrediction calculators can help set outcomes expectations following orthopaedic surgery, however effective implementation strategies for these tools are unknown. This study evaluated provider and patient perspectives on clinical implementation of web-based prediction calculators developed using national prospective spine surgery registry data from the Quality Outcomes Database.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews in two health systems, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and Duke University Health System (DUHS) of orthopedic and neurosurgery health care providers (VUMC: n = 19; DUHS: n = 6), health care administrators (VUMC: n = 9; DUHS: n = 9), and patients undergoing elective spine surgery (VUMC: n = 16). Qualitative template analysis was used to analyze interview data, with a focus on end-user perspectives regarding clinical implementation of web-based prediction tools.ResultsHealth care providers, administrators and patients overwhelmingly supported the use of the calculators to help set realistic expectations for surgical outcomes. Some clinicians had questions about the validity and applicability of the calculators in their patient population. A consensus was that the calculators needed seamless integration into clinical workflows, but there was little agreement on best methods for selecting which patients to complete the calculators, timing, and mode of completion. Many interviewees expressed concerns that calculator results could influence payers, or expose risk of liability. Few patients expressed concerns over additional survey burden if they understood that the information would directly inform their care.ConclusionsInterviewees had a largely positive opinion of the calculators, believing they could aid in discussions about expectations for pain and functional recovery after spine surgery. No single implementation strategy is likely to be successful, and strategies vary, even within the same healthcare system. Patients should be well-informed of how responses will be used to deliver better care, and concerns over how the calculators could impact payment and liability should be addressed prior to use. Future research is necessary to determine whether use of calculators improves management and outcomes for people seeking a surgical consult for spine pain.
| S-EPMC10399016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Toxicities after chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy are well known, yet the patient experience during and after CAR-T therapy has not been well described outside of the trial setting. We explored the patient experience after CAR-T therapy to inform the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measurement approach for the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). We recruited (1) adult patients diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy 14 days to 6 months after receiving a commercial CAR T cell product who had agreed to be contacted by the CIBMTR, (2) caregivers of those patients, and (3) clinical experts in CAR-T therapy. Telephone interviews were conducted following a semistructured guide that included open-ended questions about symptoms and functioning. We conducted a systematic content analysis of each transcript using prespecified codes representing common domains of health, as well as open coding for emergent themes. Forty patients at 29 centers, 15 of their caregivers, and 15 experts from 9 centers participated, representing diversity with respect to age, sex, race/ethnicity, and years in practice (experts). Patients, caregivers, and experts shared largely consistent impressions of the patient experience after CAR-T therapy. Commonly described themes included anxiety, cognitive dysfunction, depression, fatigue, pain, impaired physical function, gastrointestinal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, sleep difficulties, need for support, financial impact, hospitalization, communication with healthcare providers, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Limitations in patients' ability to participate in social roles and activities was the most prevalent theme, found in nearly all interviews. In the setting of CAR-T therapy, a multidimensional approach to PRO measurement is needed that includes physical, mental, and social health, as well as the financial impact of this novel treatment. High-quality existing PRO tools are available to measure these concepts. Results will inform the CIBMTR measurement of PROs after CAR-T therapy and may be applicable to other CAR-T studies that aim to represent patient experiences.
| S-EPMC10369368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough several outcomes are commonly measured to assess the effect of surgery for young people with cerebral palsy (CP), these are selected mainly by health professionals and researchers. Including the perspectives of a broader range of stakeholders is an essential step towards determining important outcomes for assessment. This qualitative study involves the development of a core outcome set (COS) for lower limb orthopaedic surgery for ambulant children with CP.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify outcomes that matter to children and young people with CP, their parents and healthcare professionals following lower limb orthopaedic surgery.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 healthcare professionals, 10 children and young people with CP and 8 parents. Interview data were analysed by content analysis supported by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF-CY) supplemented by thematic analysis.FindingsThirty-one outcomes were identified in total, which were linked to eleven second-level ICF-CY categories. There were differences between stakeholder groups in preferences and expectations from surgical outcomes. Healthcare professionals and children with their parents identified 31 and 25 outcomes, respectively. Health outcomes valued by participants were lower limb alignment and symmetry, flexibility and muscle strength, mental health, fatigue, pain, function in life, mobility, participation, being independent, quality of life and adverse events. Compared to previous published trials, 10 new outcomes were revealed by this study.ConclusionThe researchers identified outcomes that are important to all stakeholders following lower limb orthopaedic surgery for ambulant CP. Including these outcomes in future studies would promote patient-centred care for children and young adults with CP. Findings will be used to inform an international Delphi survey and develop a COS in this field.Patient and public contributionThis study was informed by an advisory group including a young adult with CP and a parent of a child with CP. This group engaged in the design of the study and the information material to support the interview (information sheet and interview topic guide).
| S-EPMC9122398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCauda equina syndrome (CES) is a serious neurological condition most commonly due to compression of the lumbosacral nerve roots, which can result in significant disability. The evidence for acute intervention in CES is mainly from retrospective studies. There is heterogeneity in the outcomes chosen for analysis in these studies, which makes it difficult to synthesise the data across studies. This study will develop a core outcome set for use in future studies of CES, engaging with key stakeholders and using transparent methodology. This will help ensure that relevant outcomes are used in future and will facilitate attempts to summarise data across studies in systematic reviews.Methods and analysisA systematic literature review will document all the outcomes for CES after surgery mentioned in the literature. The qualitative interviews with patients with CES will be semistructured, audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed with the use of NVivo V.10 to identify outcomes and determine the themes described. The outcomes from the literature review and patient interviews will be combined and prioritised to determine what the most important outcomes are in CES research studies to patients and healthcare professionals. The prioritisation will be done through a two-round iterative Delphi survey and a consensus meeting. This process will decide the core outcome set for patients with CES.Ethics and disseminationREC and HRA approval was obtained on the 6/12/16 for the qualitative interviews from South Central-Hampshire A REC. REC reference 16/SC/0587. REC and HRA approval was obtained on 26/3/18 for the Delphi process and consensus meeting from North West-Greater Manchester Central REC. REC reference was 18/NW/0022. The final core outcome set will be published and freely available.Trial registration numberThis study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database as study 824.
| S-EPMC6502054 | biostudies-literature