Mechanisms for the testing effect on patient-reported outcomes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jones SMW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7090376 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Mechanisms for the testing effect on patient-reported outcomes.
Jones Salene M W SMW Shulman Lisa J LJ Richards Julie E JE Ludman Evette J EJ
Contemporary clinical trials communications 20200316
The testing effect is when patient-reported outcomes (PRO) improve with repeated administration without intervention. The testing effect can confound interpretation of clinical trials using PROs as endpoints. This study investigated potential mechanisms. The parent study (n = 302) investigated a self-management intervention for depression. We qualitatively analyzed exit interview feedback from the 89 control group participants completing the last assessment. Participants reported several perceiv ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The previously published results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial showed that among participants with hypertension and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, the rates of cardiovascular events were lower among those who were assigned to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) than among those who were assigned to a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). Whether such intensive treatment affected patient-reported outcomes was uncertain; those results from the trial are reported here. METHODS:We randomly assigned 9361 participants with hypertension to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg or a target of less than 140 mm Hg. Patient-reported outcome measures included the scores on the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item depression scale (PHQ-9), patient-reported satisfaction with their blood-pressure care and blood-pressure medications, and adherence to blood-pressure medications. We compared the scores in the intensive-treatment group with those in the standard-treatment group among all participants and among participants stratified according to physical and cognitive function. RESULTS:Participants who received intensive treatment received an average of one additional antihypertensive medication, and the systolic blood pressure was 14.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 14.3 to 15.4) lower in the group that received intensive treatment than in the group that received standard treatment. Mean PCS, MCS, and PHQ-9 scores were relatively stable over a median of 3 years of follow-up, with no significant differences between the two treatment groups. No significant differences between the treatment groups were noted when participants were stratified according to baseline measures of physical or cognitive function. Satisfaction with blood-pressure care was high in both treatment groups, and we found no significant difference in adherence to blood-pressure medications. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-reported outcomes among participants who received intensive treatment, which targeted a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, were similar to those among participants who received standard treatment, including among participants with decreased physical or cognitive function. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .).
| S-EPMC5706112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Incorporation of the patient perspective into research and clinical practice will enrich our understanding of the status and management of patients with glomerular disease and may result in therapies that better address patient needs. In recent years, the importance of the patient experience of glomerular disease has become clear, and significant efforts have been undertaken to systematically capture and describe the patient's disease experience. Patient-reported outcome instruments provide a means to assess the patient's experience in a quantitative manner, thus enabling for comparisons within and between patients. Patient-reported outcome assessments are solely on the basis of a patient report about the status of their health without amendment or interpretation by a clinician or others. Patient-reported outcome assessments provide an opportunity to incorporate the patient perspective into clinical care, research, and clinical trials. Our paper provides an overview of terminology and development methods for patient-reported outcomes and reviews (1) currently available patient-reported outcome instruments appropriate for use in glomerular disease, (2) existing patient-reported outcome data in glomerular disease, and (3) opportunities for incorporating patient-reported outcome instruments into clinical care and research.
| S-EPMC5220669 | biostudies-other
Project description:This is a proof-of-concept pilot randomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of the innovative Patient-Reported Outcomes-Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) to enhance personalized supportive care for cancer patients and caregivers during post-treatment care transition.
| 2347191 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Aims: To explore patient experiences in a large-scale primary care-based, preemptive genetic testing program. Methods: Patients who received genetic results from the initiative were invited to participate in an online survey 3 weeks postresult disclosure. A 6-month follow-up survey was sent to assess changes over time. Results: The initial survey was completed by 1646 patients, with 544 completing the 6-month follow-up survey. The following outcomes were high overall: patient-reported understanding of results (cancer: 87%; cardiac: 86%); perceived utility (75%); positive emotions (relieved: 66.8%; happy: 62.0%); family result sharing (67.6%); and satisfaction (87%), although analysis by demographic factors identified groups who may benefit from additional education and emotional support. Results-related health behaviors and discussions with providers increased over time (screening procedures 6.1% to 14.2% p < 0.001; provider discussion 10.3% to 25.3%, p < 0.001), and were more likely to take place for patients with positive cancer and/or cardiac results (39.8% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Forty-seven percent of patients reported insurance discrimination concerns, and most (79.4%) were not familiar with privacy and nondiscrimination laws. Concerns regarding discrimination and negative emotions decreased between the two survey time points (privacy issues 44.6% to 35.1% p < 0.001; life insurance discrimination concerns 35.5% to 29.6%, p = 0.001; anxiety 8.1% to 3.3%, p < 0.001; and uncertainty 19.8% to 12.8%, p < 0.001). These findings led to the development and integration of additional patient resources to improve program implementation. Conclusion: Our findings highlight patient experiences with and areas of need in a community-based genomic screening pilot initiative using a mixed primary care/genetics provider model to deliver precision medicine.
| S-EPMC7891215 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe evaluated the correlations between visual deficits and patient-reported symptoms in patients with regressed proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) to determine whether there is a psychophysical basis for vision-related impairments.MethodsVisual acuity, reading acuity, contrast sensitivity, frequency doubling perimetry (FDP), Humphrey field analyzer (HFA), and dark adaptation assessed visual function. The National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) and Low Luminance Questionnaire (LLQ) assessed quality of life.ResultsWe recruited 30 adults who received panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for PDR and 15 control subjects; 22 diabetic and 11 control participants completed a second evaluation 5 years later. Visual acuity of the worse-seeing eyes tended to correlate better with NEI VFQ-25 and LLQ than did the acuity of the better-seeing eyes. Other vision measures were generally not associated with either questionnaire, especially responses related to driving ability and mental health. Visual acuity only detected subnormal performance in 43% to 45% of patients, while FDP 24-2, HFA 60-4, and LLQ detected abnormal performance in >80% of patients.ConclusionsPoor visual acuity may explain some vision-related impairments in daily function. However, many patients with regressed PDR have normal acuity but reduced visual field and poor quality of life. In these patients, their reported symptoms were not fully explained by visual acuity or any psychophysical tests alone.Translational relevanceVisual acuity is a poor indicator of overall visual function in people with regressed PDR. In clinical settings, visual field tests and patient-reported outcomes may provide more comprehensive assessments of their functional deficits than visual acuity.
| S-EPMC6664865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ensuring that the patient's voice is routinely incorporated in all aspects of health care in oncology is essential to provide quality care. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are standardized measures that are used to obtain the patient's perspective and are increasingly used in all aspects of health care to ensure optimal delivery of patient-centered care. The US Food and Drug Administration encourages that PROs be used in studies for label indications. There are no uniform standardized methods to use PROs nor is there consensus on which PROs are best for regulatory approval, comparative effectiveness research, toxicity assessment, health-related quality of life, or symptom monitoring. For this review, we conducted a literature search using PubMed and Google Scholar, and herein summarize the evidence related to the use of PROs in clinic care and research. Using valid, reliable, and easily interpretable PROs developed in comparable populations will provide the most useful results. Various ways that PROs can be used successfully in oncology have been exemplified in this overview to provide clinicians and researchers practical guidance.
| S-EPMC6832764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over the past 20 years, there has been tremendous progress in the area of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A PRO instrument is defined as any measure of a patient's health status that is elicited directly from the patient and assesses how the patient "feels or functions with respect to his or her health condition." The advances seen in clinical research regarding PROs has been mirrored in research in cystic fibrosis (CF). A large number of instruments have been used for both therapeutic and nontherapeutic clinical research for many chronic conditions. This review will summarize a history of the development of PROs and how PROs are viewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. We will then review the current state of the art of patient-reported outcomes in CF, specifically addressing the evaluation of different PRO instruments in terms of their reliability and validity. Finally, we will delineate further areas for development of PROs in CF. We believe that the future of CF research will incorporate a more diverse selection of PRO outcome measures; these outcome measures ultimately may be incorporated into clinical care to standardize symptom assessment and provide information regarding the need for specific clinical interventions to improve the quality of care delivered to these patients.
| S-EPMC2647603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of a person's health status that provide a global perspective of patient well-being. PROs can be classified into 4 primary domains: global, mental, physical, and social health. In this descriptive review, we focus on how PROs can be used in cardiac clinical trials, with an emphasis on cardiac surgical trials for patients with coronary heart disease and heart failure. We also highlight ongoing challenges and provide specific suggestions and novel opportunities to advance cardiac clinical trials. Current challenges include the long-term measurement of PROs in clinical trials beyond 1 year, inconsistency in the choice of the outcome measures among studies, and the lack of measurement of PROs across multiple domains. Opportunities for advancement include measuring PROs using consumer health informatics tools, including returning information back to participants in formats that they can understand using visualization. Future opportunities include quantifying cohort-specific minimal clinically important differences for PROs.
| S-EPMC8487900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesGiven its complexity, chronic noncancer pain presents an opportunity to use health information technology (IT) to improve care experiences. The objective of this study was to assess whether integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data in an electronic health record (EHR) affects provider and patient satisfaction with chronic noncancer pain care.Study designWe conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial involving 4 family medicine clinics.MethodsWe enrolled primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with chronic noncancer pain. In the first 7 months (education phase), PCPs in intervention practices received education on how to use PROs for pain care. In the second 7 months (PRO phase), patients in intervention practices reported pain-related outcomes on arrival at their visits. PROs were immediately reported to PCPs through the EHR. Control group PCPs provided usual care. We compared intervention and control practices in terms of provider and patient satisfaction with care.ResultsDuring the education phase, patients' mean ratings of their visits did not differ between control and intervention (9.33 vs 9.08; P = .20). During the PRO phase, patients' mean ratings did not differ between control and intervention (9.28 vs 9.01; P = .20). Similarly, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of provider satisfaction.ConclusionsDelivering EHR-integrated PROs did not consistently improve patient or provider satisfaction. Positively, we found no evidence that the PRO tools negatively affected satisfaction. Future studies and technological innovations are needed to translate point-of-care health IT tools into improvements in patient and provider experiences.
| S-EPMC5460672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) include questionnaires or surveys that ask patients for their perceptions about things like symptoms they are experiencing or quality of life. For incurable, morbid, life-shortening conditions like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), PROs are particularly germane: They elucidate for clinicians and researchers what it is like for patients to live with such a disease, and they may detect important treatment effects not captured by other metrics (eg, pulmonary physiology). However, a relative paucity of research on PROs in IPF has left significant knowledge gaps in this area and contributed to the timidity investigators have about using PROs as prominent outcomes in IPF drug trials. Additional research on existing instruments is needed to establish or bolster their basic psychometric properties in IPF. When PROs are used as end points in therapeutic trials, analyzing PRO response data can be challenging, but these challenges can be overcome with a transparent, thoughtful, and sophisticated statistical approach. In this article, we discuss some of the basics of PRO assessment, existing knowledge gaps in IPF-related PRO research, and the potential usefulness of using PROs in IPF trials and conclude by offering specific recommendations for an approach to analyzing repeated-measures PRO data from IPF trials.
| S-EPMC3425334 | biostudies-other