Real-world behavioral practices of cancer patients: misconceptions compromising daily life activities

E. Shachar , S. Peleg-Hasson , D. Vorobiof , N. Moisa , E. Waller , T. Safra , I. Wolf
{"title":"Real-world behavioral practices of cancer patients: misconceptions compromising daily life activities","authors":"E. Shachar ,&nbsp;S. Peleg-Hasson ,&nbsp;D. Vorobiof ,&nbsp;N. Moisa ,&nbsp;E. Waller ,&nbsp;T. Safra ,&nbsp;I. Wolf","doi":"10.1016/j.esmorw.2024.100041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Health-related quality of life is commonly used as an endpoint in clinical trials. While it evaluates the presence of symptoms, it does not measure patients’ ability to maintain normal daily life activities (DLA). We designed a daily life assessment tool, validated among actively treated cancer patients at a single center before the coronavirus 2019 pandemic. We discovered that most patients reported compromised daily activities. In this study we aimed to examine DLA in an international cohort.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A locally validated questionnaire was distributed internationally using the Belong.life digital health platform. We examined real-world patient-reported practices. The survey consisted of demographic, clinical, behavioral parameters and sources guiding and supporting patient practices.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The study comprised 1395 patient-reported outcomes. The majority of participants (1005, 73%) reported at least one adopted limitation in daily activities, and 305 (22%) maintained more than half of these constraints. Daily life restrictions included avoiding sun exposure (779, 58%), international travel (417, 33%), indoor public places (431, 33%), hair dyeing (271, 23%), domestic tourism (284, 22%), contact with friends and family (231, 18%), children and grandchildren (202, 16%), public spaces (190, 14.62%), and contact with pets (135, 10%). Multiple sources were implicated by patients guiding their behavior, including healthcare professionals (951, 66%), non-medical authorities [(internet, patient forums, partners, friends, and family (171, 12%)], and both non-medical authorities and the healthcare team (320, 22.19%). There was no association between country of origin (<em>P</em> = 0.12), and education level (<em>P</em> = 0.36) across patients who maintained strict (≥50% of the limitations) and less strict restrictions (&lt;50% of the limitations). A significant association was noted between younger age (<em>P</em> = 0.001), female sex (<em>P</em> = 0.01) and primary cancer site (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.0001), and the adoption of strict restrictions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The majority of patients globally reported compromised daily activities, which are likely attributed to misconceptions about therapy and disease. These findings call for the assessment of an overlooked measure, DLA reflecting real-life quality of life, as an additional endpoint of clinical trials, aiming to achieve the ultimate benefit for our patients, a measure of a full and meaningful life.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100491,"journal":{"name":"ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100041"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949820124000195/pdfft?md5=cd73ed96e136733c4817e31a712ca505&pid=1-s2.0-S2949820124000195-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949820124000195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Health-related quality of life is commonly used as an endpoint in clinical trials. While it evaluates the presence of symptoms, it does not measure patients’ ability to maintain normal daily life activities (DLA). We designed a daily life assessment tool, validated among actively treated cancer patients at a single center before the coronavirus 2019 pandemic. We discovered that most patients reported compromised daily activities. In this study we aimed to examine DLA in an international cohort.

Methods

A locally validated questionnaire was distributed internationally using the Belong.life digital health platform. We examined real-world patient-reported practices. The survey consisted of demographic, clinical, behavioral parameters and sources guiding and supporting patient practices.

Results

The study comprised 1395 patient-reported outcomes. The majority of participants (1005, 73%) reported at least one adopted limitation in daily activities, and 305 (22%) maintained more than half of these constraints. Daily life restrictions included avoiding sun exposure (779, 58%), international travel (417, 33%), indoor public places (431, 33%), hair dyeing (271, 23%), domestic tourism (284, 22%), contact with friends and family (231, 18%), children and grandchildren (202, 16%), public spaces (190, 14.62%), and contact with pets (135, 10%). Multiple sources were implicated by patients guiding their behavior, including healthcare professionals (951, 66%), non-medical authorities [(internet, patient forums, partners, friends, and family (171, 12%)], and both non-medical authorities and the healthcare team (320, 22.19%). There was no association between country of origin (P = 0.12), and education level (P = 0.36) across patients who maintained strict (≥50% of the limitations) and less strict restrictions (<50% of the limitations). A significant association was noted between younger age (P = 0.001), female sex (P = 0.01) and primary cancer site (P < 0.0001), and the adoption of strict restrictions.

Conclusion

The majority of patients globally reported compromised daily activities, which are likely attributed to misconceptions about therapy and disease. These findings call for the assessment of an overlooked measure, DLA reflecting real-life quality of life, as an additional endpoint of clinical trials, aiming to achieve the ultimate benefit for our patients, a measure of a full and meaningful life.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
癌症患者的真实世界行为实践:影响日常生活活动的错误观念
背景健康相关的生活质量通常被用作临床试验的终点。虽然它能评估症状的存在,但不能衡量患者维持正常日常生活活动(DLA)的能力。我们设计了一种日常生活评估工具,并在 2019 年冠状病毒大流行之前在一个中心对积极接受治疗的癌症患者进行了验证。我们发现,大多数患者的日常生活活动受到了影响。在这项研究中,我们旨在对国际队列中的 DLA 进行检查。方法 我们使用 Belong.life 数字健康平台在国际范围内分发了经过当地验证的调查问卷。我们研究了真实世界中患者报告的实践。调查内容包括人口统计学、临床、行为参数以及指导和支持患者实践的来源。大多数参与者(1005 人,占 73%)报告在日常活动中至少采用了一种限制,其中 305 人(占 22%)保持了一半以上的限制。日常生活限制包括避免日晒(779 人,58%)、国际旅行(417 人,33%)、室内公共场所(431 人,33%)、染发(271 人,23%)、国内旅游(284 人,22%)、与朋友和家人接触(231 人,18%)、与子女和孙辈接触(202 人,16%)、公共场所(190 人,14.62%)以及与宠物接触(135 人,10%)。指导患者行为的来源有多种,包括医护人员(951 人,66%)、非医疗机构[(互联网、患者论坛、伴侣、朋友和家人(171 人,12%)],以及非医疗机构和医护团队(320 人,22.19%)。在保持严格限制(≥50% 的限制)和不太严格限制(50% 的限制)的患者中,原籍国(P = 0.12)和受教育程度(P = 0.36)之间没有关联。年轻(P = 0.001)、女性(P = 0.01)和原发癌症部位(P <0.0001)与采取严格限制之间存在明显关联。这些研究结果呼吁评估一项被忽视的指标,即反映现实生活质量的 DLA,作为临床试验的额外终点,以实现患者的最终获益,即衡量充实而有意义的生活。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Utility of automated data transfer for cancer clinical trials and considerations for implementation Characterisation of oncology EHR-derived real-world data in the UK, Germany, and Japan Evolving treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma post-avelumab maintenance approval: insights from The US Oncology Network Collaborating across sectors in service of open science, precision oncology, and patients: an overview of the AACR Project GENIE (Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange) Biopharma Collaborative (BPC) Data analytics for real-world data integration in TKI-treated NSCLC patients using electronic health records
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1