Feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of a reproductive patient reported outcome measure for cancer survivors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Cancer patients can experience a number of reproductive complications as a result of cancer treatment and may benefit from reproductive preventative health strategies. A Reproductive Survivorship Patient Reported Outcome Measure (RS-PROM) is not currently available but could assist patients address reproductive concerns.Purpose
To develop and test the acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness of a RS-PROM tool to be used to assess reproductive needs of cancer survivors aged 18-45 years.Methods
We reviewed the outcomes of a recently published audit of reproductive care provided in our cancer survivorship clinic to identify gaps in current service provided and used this along with available validated reproductive measures, to develop this pilot RS-PROM. Survivors aged 18-45 years either attending the SCH survivorship clinic over a 1-year period or participants on the Australasian Oncofertility Registry (AOFR) who had agreed to be contacted for future research studies were asked to complete the RS-PROM and a questionnaire on the acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness of content included.Results
One-hundred and fifty patients participated (61.3% females). Median age at cancer diagnosis was 24.5 years (range: 2-45 years). Eighty percent of participants reported the length of the RS-PROM was "just right", 92% agreed they would not mind completing the RS-PROM and 92.7% were willing to answer all questions, with 97% agreeing that the RS-PROM would be an important tool in addressing difficult sexual/reproductive topics concerning with healthcare professionals.Conclusion
The large majority of survivors participating in our pilot study found the RS-PROM to be an acceptable, feasible and useful tool to assist discussions of their sexual and reproductive health concerns and experiences with their clinical team.
SUBMITTER: Gerstl B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8396734 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck (MDASI-HN) module in cancer clinics and its effect on patient-reported experience.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, longitudinal study at a tertiary cancer institution between September 2020 and August 2021. Patients with newly diagnosed head and neck (HN) cancer who were evaluated to receive radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy and could communicate in English were approached to participate. The primary outcome was feasibility and acceptability of the MDASI-HN implementation in the radiation oncology department assessed by patient and provider exit surveys. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported experience as recorded by a shortened Your Voice Matters survey (YVM) in 2 cohorts pre- and post-MDASI-HN implementation and symptom scores. Descriptive statistics were used for exit surveys and symptom scores. Mann-Whitney tests were used to assess differences in positive responses between pre- and postimplementation for each YVM question. Cochrane-Armitage tests were used to examine changes in patient-reported experience over time.ResultsFifty-one patients were enrolled in the postimplementation cohort and 29 (60%) responded to the exit survey. Eighty-nine percent of patients reported that MDASI-HN made it easier to remember symptoms, and 86% recommend its use in routine care. Four of the 5 radiation oncology HN providers (80%) responded to exit surveys; 75% felt the MDASI-HN provided clinically relevant information, improved communication with patients, and did not increase clinic time. The overall patient-reported experience was not affected by the implementation (P = .82). The probability of positive responses over time was significant (P = .025) in the clinic coordination domain for the postimplementation cohort.ConclusionsImplementation of MDASI-HN was feasible and acceptable by patients and providers. Although the overall patient-reported experience was not affected by implementation, some aspects improved as treatment progressed.
| S-EPMC9677219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUK-wide national clinical guidelines promote routine 6-month post-stroke follow-up assessment. However, as part of this 6-month assessment little information is gathered from the patient's perspective. The means of collecting this patient-centred information might be served best by a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at the 6-month assessment time point. Currently, four different methods of 6-month follow-up assessment occur; the most common being face-to-face interview followed by telephone interview, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire. Therefore, this study will investigate if the acceptability of telephone, online or postal administration of a PROM at the 6-month post-stoke time point is not inferior to face-to-face administration.Methods/designA UK multicentre, blinded (analyst and researcher), pragmatic, non-inferiority study, with 80% power using a 2.5% non-inferiority margin was designed to compare the acceptability of three modes of administration (telephone interview, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire) compared with face-to-face interview administration of a PROM. We plan to approach and randomise a minimum of 808 potentially eligible participants, 202 participants per group.DiscussionThe aim of this ongoing research is to understand if there is a difference between face-to-face administration and the other three methods of administering a PROM as a patient-centred supplement to the 6-month review for stroke survivors. In utilising a pragmatic design, it is believed that this study will offer UK wide generalisable results, of the acceptability of the methods under investigation, to inform clinicians and commissioners of stroke services.Trials registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03177161 . Registered on 6 June 2017.
| S-EPMC6030753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and caregiver-reported outcome measures can raise the patient centeredness of treatment and improve the quality of palliative care. Nevertheless, the everyday implementation of self-report in patients and caregivers is complex, and should be adapted for use in specific settings. We aimed to implement a set of outcome measures that included patient and caregiver self- and proxy-reported outcome measures in specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In this study, we explore how the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC) and the Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI-7) can be feasibly, acceptably and appropriately implemented in the daily care routines of SOPC.MethodsFive SOPC teams were trained, and used the outcome measures in daily practice. Team members were mainly nurses and physicians. To investigate their feedback, we used a multi-method qualitative design consisting of focus groups with SOPC-team members (n = 14), field notes of meetings and conversations with the SOPC teams. In an iterative process, we analysed the findings using qualitative content analysis and refined use of the outcome measures.ResultsWe found that integrating patient and caregiver outcome measures into daily care routines in SOPC is feasible. To improve feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness, the resulting burden on patients and relatives should be kept to a minimum, the usefulness of the measures must be understood, they should be used considerately, and administration must be manageable. We removed ZBI-7 from the set of measures as a result of feedback on its content and wording.ConclusionsSOPC-team members have reservations about the implementation of PROM in SOPC, but with appropriate adjustments, its application in daily care is feasible, accepted and perceived as appropriate. Previous to use, SOPC-team members should be trained in how to apply the measures, in the design of manageable processes that include integration into electronic documentation systems, and in ongoing evaluation and support. They should also be taught how useful the measures can be.Trial registrationMay 19th, 2017, German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421 .
| S-EPMC9063228 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To examine the acceptability of a Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) that assesses perceptions and experiences of implants for breast reconstruction or augmentation, and the feasibility of implementing it in the Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR). METHODS:The BREAST-Q Implant Surveillance (BREAST-Q IS) is a 5-question PROM derived from the BREAST-Q questionnaire. It assesses perceptions of breast appearance and sensation, and experiences of pain. Breast implant recipients (recruited via community networks, social media and notices in surgeons' rooms) and surgeons contributing to the ABDR were invited to review the BREAST-Q-IS. Participation was by individual semi-structured interviews by telephone or email, or by completion of a paper questionnaire. Transcripts of audio recordings and emailed text were analysed thematically. RESULTS:Twenty one breast implant recipients (10 after reconstruction and 11 augmentation), 8 surgeons (five plastic, three breast) and 2 medical professionals performing cosmetic surgeries were interviewed. Six themes were identified: Overall impression, Emotional response to the BREAST-Q IS, Method of follow-up, Suggested improvements, Group variation, and Potential Clinical utility. Overall, breast implant recipients and surgeons found the BREAST-Q IS to be acceptable and unlikely to provoke strong emotional reactions. Email was the preferred mode of contact. Most suggested improvements were to add questions. Surgeons expressed concern that subjective responses to the PROM might not accurately reflect experiences and that the PROM would predict need for revision rather than device failure. CONCLUSION:This study supports the acceptability and feasibility of BREAST-Q IS as a PROM for recipients of breast implants. Further validation of the Breast-Q IS is required.
| S-EPMC6805841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Global Research on the Impact of Dermatological Diseases (GRIDD) team is developing the new Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure of the impact of dermatological conditions on the patient's life, in partnership with patients. To develop PRIDD, we conducted a systematic review, followed by a qualitative interview study with 68 patients worldwide and subsequently a global Delphi survey of 1,154 patients to ensure PRIDD items were meaningful and important to patients.ObjectiveTo pilot test PRIDD with patients with dermatological conditions, focusing on its content validity (comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, and relevance), acceptability, and feasibility.MethodsWe conducted a theory-led qualitative study using the Three-Step Test-Interview method of cognitive interviewing. Three rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted online. Adults (≥ 18 years) living with a dermatological condition and who spoke English sufficiently to take part in the interview were recruited through the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations' (GlobalSkin) global membership network. The topic guide met the gold-standard COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) standards for cognitive interviewing. Analysis followed the thematic analytical model of cognitive interviewing.ResultsTwelve people (58% male) representing six dermatological conditions from four countries participated. Overall, patients found PRIDD to be comprehensible, comprehensive, relevant, acceptable, and feasible. Participants were able to discern the conceptual framework domains from the items. Feedback resulted in: the recall period being extended from 1 week to 1 month; removal of the 'not relevant' response option; and changes to the instructions and item ordering and wording to improve clarity and increase respondents' confidence in their ability to respond. These evidence-based adjustments resulted in a 26-item version of PRIDD.ConclusionThis study met the gold-standard COSMIN criteria for the pilot testing of health measurement instruments. The data triangulated our previous findings, in particular the conceptual framework of impact. Our findings illuminate how patients understand and respond to PRIDD and other patient-reported measurement instruments. The results of comprehensibility, comprehensiveness, relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of PRIDD provide evidence of content validity from the target population. The next step in the development and validation of PRIDD is psychometric testing.
| S-EPMC10196461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe majority of stroke survivors experience long-term impairments. Regular physical activity and other lifestyle modifications play an important role in rehabilitation. Outpatient rehabilitation using telemedicine might be suitable to improve functional ability and long-term secondary prevention. The Strokecoach Intervention Program (SIP, Strokecoach GmbH, Cologne, Germany) comprises training, coaching and monitoring with the aim of improving or at least maintaining functional independence and preventing further stroke through more targeted physical activity. The SIP is provided as blended care, which refers to the integrated and coordinated delivery of healthcare services that combines traditional in-person interactions with technology-mediated interventions, optimizing the use of both face-to-face and virtual modalities to enhance patient outcomes.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptance of the SIP by the participants and its practical application, as well as to obtain initial indications of effects of the SIP on the basis of patient-related outcome measures, blood pressure measurements and recording of physical activity in parallel with the intervention.MethodsData from individuals with stroke participating in the SIP were analyzed retrospectively. Within the SIP, participants received an application-based training program, were instructed to measure their blood pressure daily and to wear an activity tracker (pedometer). During the intervention period of either 6 or 12 weeks, the participants were supported and motivated by a personal coach via a messenger application. The primary outcomes of the analysis were recruitment, acceptance of and satisfaction with the SIP. Secondary outcomes included functional measures, mobility and health-related quality of life.ResultsA total of 122 individuals with stroke could be recruited for the SIP. A total of 96 out of 122 were able to start the program (54% female, mean age 54.8 (SD = 13.1), 6.1 (SD = 6.6) years after stroke onset) and 88 completed the SIP. Participants wore the activity tracker on 66% and tracked their blood pressure on 72% of their intervention days. A further analyzed subgroup of 38 participants showed small improvements in patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life (SF-36) with an increase of 12 points in the subdomain mental health, vitality (12.6) and physical functioning (9.1). However, no statistically significant improvements were found in other performance-based measures (Timed Up and Go test, gait speed).ConclusionsThis study showed that a blended therapy approach for stroke survivors with mild to moderate impairments in the chronic phase is feasible and was highly accepted by participants, who benefitted from the additional coaching.
| S-EPMC10886035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate psychometric characteristics of a questionnaire (the Northwestern Ego-integrity Scale (NEIS)) on ego-integrity (the experience of wholeness and meaning in life, even in spite of negative experiences) and despair (the experience of regret about the life one has led, and feelings of sadness, failure and hopelessness) among cancer patients.Cancer patients (n = 164) completed patient reported outcome measures on ego-integrity and despair (NEIS), psychological distress, anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)), and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 (cancer survivors, n = 57) or EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL (advanced cancer patients, n = 107)). Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to assess construct validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess internal consistency. Convergent validity was tested based on a priori defined hypotheses: a higher level of ego-integrity was expected to be related to a higher level of quality of life, and lower levels of distress, depression and anxiety; a higher level of despair was expected to be related to a lower level of quality of life, and higher levels of distress, depression and anxiety.The majority of all items (94.5%) of the NEIS were completed by patients and single item missing rate was below 2%. The two subscales, labeled as Ego-integrity (5 items) and Despair (4 items) had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha .72 and .61, respectively). The Ego-integrity subscale was not significantly associated with quality of life, distress, anxiety, or depression. The Despair subscale correlated significantly (p <.001) with quality of life (r = -.29), distress (r = .44), anxiety (r = .47) and depression (r = .32).The NEIS has good psychometric characteristics to assess ego-integrity and despair among cancer patients.
| S-EPMC4873008 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposePatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (2010) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment.MethodsWe analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis - focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment - the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013), was administered to group A.ResultsWe analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from "1" (illustrating non achievement) to "5" (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs.ConclusionResults indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible.
| S-EPMC10501936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImproving cognition is service users' top research priority for life after stroke, and future research should include outcomes that they deem important. Patient perspectives on outcomes are collected using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There is currently no patient-centred PROM specific for cognitive rehabilitation trials.ObjectiveInform PROM development by exploring stroke survivor perspectives on the important, measurable impacts of persisting post-stroke cognitive problems.DesignQualitative semi-structured interviews in participants' homes.ParticipantsPurposive sample of 16 cognitively impaired stroke survivors at least six months post-stroke.MethodsInterviews used a schedule and communication aids developed through patient consultation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim with non-verbal communication recorded using field notes. Data were analysed using a framework approach to find commonalities to shape the focus and content of an outcome measure.ResultsParticipants identified important impacts of their 'invisible' cognitive problems, outside of other stroke-related impairments. Cognitive problems exacerbated emotional issues and vice versa. Changes in self-identity and social participation were prominent. Impact was not spoken about in terms of frequency but rather in terms of the negative affect associated with problems; terms like 'bothered' and 'frustration' were often used.ConclusionsThe results support the development of a PROM specifically designed to address the impact of cognitive problems. It should: include items addressing a comprehensive range of cognitive skills; ask questions about mood, self-identity and social participation; use accessible wording that respondents understand and endorse; measure impact rather than frequency; and explore perceived impact on carers.
| S-EPMC5810690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Validity is the ability of an instrument to measure what it claims to measure. It means the degree to which the empirical evidence supports the trustworthiness of interpretations based on the calculated scores. The hematological malignancy (HM) specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO), is a newly developed instrument for use in daily clinical practice as well as in research. This study, provides the evidence for construct validity of the HM-PRO, specifically focusing on the convergent and divergent validity compared to the other established instruments used in hematology. Methods This validation study adopted a prospective cross-sectional design where a heterogeneous group of patients diagnosed with different HMs and different disease state were recruited. A total of 905 patients were recruited from seven secondary care hospitals in the UK and online through five patient organizations. Patients were asked to complete the HM-PRO and other cancer specific PRO’s, FACT-G and EORTC QLQ C-30. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 23 statistical software. Results A total of 486 males (53.7%) and 419 females (46.3%), with a mean age of 64.3 (± 12.4) years and mean time since diagnosis of 4.6 ( ± 5.2) were recruited. The total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with the five functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical = ?0.71, Role = ?0.72, Emotional = ?0.64, Cognitive = ?0.58, Social = ?0.74—p < 0.001). With respect to correlation with FACT-G, the total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with Physical (?0.74), Emotional (?0.57), Functional (?0.66) domains and overall score of FACT-G (?0.74). Similarly, the total score of Part B of the HM-PRO highly correlated with three symptoms scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 (Fatigue scale = ?0.74, Nausea and Vomiting = ?0.52, Pain = ?0.59—p < 0.001) and individual symptom items (Dyspnea = 0.51, Insomnia= 0.43, Appetite loss = 0.54—p < 0.001). Conclusion The construct validity evidence presented in this research is a testimony to the HM-PRO’s ability to measure HRQoL issues which it intends to measure. This is of utmost importance when a PRO is used in routine clinical practice so that the interpretation of the scores or response to an individual item is understood by the clinicians/nurses as intended by the patients.
| S-EPMC7506039 | biostudies-literature