Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes最新文献

Background: The NFLymSI-18 is a patient-reported outcome measure comprised of the highest priority symptoms, emotional concerns, treatment side effects, and other concerns identified by lymphoma patients and oncologists. This study assessed the content validity of the NFLymSI-18 for patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (iNHL), with a focus on the Disease-Related Symptoms Physical (DRS-P) subscale.

Methods: Patients with a confirmed iNHL diagnosis who had received one or more lines of treatment were recruited during clinic visits. Patients described their symptoms, treatment side effects, and emotional concerns related to iNHL in a semi-structured interview. Qualitative data were analyzed using NVivo10.

Results: Data saturation was obtained by the 18th interview. Most participants (67%) had follicular lymphoma. 28% of participants had marginal zone lymphoma, and one participant had lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma/Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Mean age of the 18 participants was 67 years. 56% of the sample was male. Most participants (67%) had a college or advanced degree. When asked to describe their iNHL symptoms, patients most often discussed swelling (n = 14), fatigue (n = 11), and pain (n = 8). The following symptoms were mentioned by three patients each: anxiety, appetite loss, rash, sleep disruption, trouble breathing, and malaise. Mapping of NFLymSI-18 content to these concerns showed the instrument includes all those most frequently mentioned symptoms.

Conclusions: This study supports the content validity of the NFLymSI-18, including its DRS-P Subscale, for patients with iNHL. The instrument shows strong validity for the most referenced symptoms of swelling, fatigue, and pain. The diversity of additional symptoms reported by patients is consistent with the heterogeneous symptomology of iNHL.

Background: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are being used frequently in clinical practice. PROs often serve several purposes, such as increasing patient involvement, assessing health status, and monitoring and improving the quality-of-care at an aggregated level. However, the lack of representative PRO-data may have implications for all these purposes. This study aims to assess the association of non-administration of (not sending an electronic invite to PRO) and non-response to (not responding to PRO) electronically administered PROs with social inequality in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting. Furthermore, it examines whether the workflows surrounding PRO have an impact on non-administration and non-response.

Methods: This is a cross sectional study using routinely collected data from electronic health records and registers including cancer survivors (CSs) over 18 years booked for an initial consultation in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting using PROs for systematic health status assessment. During the study period two different PRO platforms were used, each associated with different workflows. Non-administration and non-response rates were calculated for sociodemographic characteristics for each PRO platform. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

Results: In total, 1868 (platform 1) and 1446 (platform 2) CSCSs were booked for an initial consultation. Of these, 233 (12.5%) (platform 1) and 283 (19.6%) (platform 2) were not sent a PRO (non-administration). Among those who received a PRO, 157 (9.6%) on platform 1 and 140 (12.0%) on platform 2 did not respond (non-response). Non-administration of and non-response to PROs were significantly associated with lower socioeconomic status. Moreover, the workflows surrounding PROs seem to have an impact on non-inclusion in and non-response to PROs.

Conclusions: Non-administration of and non-response to PROs in clinical practice is associated with determinants of social inequality. Clinical workflows and the PRO platforms used may potentially worsen this inequality. It is important to consider these implications when using PROs at both the individual and aggregated levels. A key aspect of implementing PROs in clinical practice is the ongoing focus on representativeness, including a focus on monitoring PRO administration and response.

Background: As cancer centers have increased focus on patient-centered, evidenced-based care, implementing efficient programs that facilitate effective patient-clinician communication remains critical. We implemented an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes). To aid evaluation of cPRO implementation, we asked patients receiving care in one of three geographical regions of an academic healthcare system about their experiences.

Methods: Using a sequential mixed-methods approach, we collected feedback in two waves. Wave 1 included virtual focus groups and interviews with patients who had completed cPRO. In Wave 2, we administered a structured survey to systematically examine Wave 1 themes. All participants had a diagnosed malignancy and received at least 2 invitations to complete cPRO. We used rapid and traditional qualitative methods to analyze Wave 1 data and focused on identifying facilitators and barriers to cPRO implementation. Wave 2 data were analyzed descriptively.

Results: Participants (n = 180) were on average 62.9 years old; were majority female, White, non-Hispanic, and married; and represented various cancer types and phases of treatment. Wave 1 participants (n = 37) identified facilitators, including cPRO's perceived value and favorable usability, and barriers, including confusion about cPRO's purpose and various considerations for responding. High levels of clinician engagement with, and patient education on, cPRO were described as facilitators while low levels were described as barriers. Wave 2 (n = 143) data demonstrated high endorsement rates of cPRO's usability on domains such as navigability (91.6%), comprehensibility (98.7%), and relevance (82.4%). Wave 2 data also indicated low rates of understanding cPRO's purpose (56.7%), education from care teams about cPRO (22.5%), and discussing results of cPRO with care teams (16.3%).

Conclusions: While patients reported high value and ease of use when completing cPRO, they also reported areas of confusion, emphasizing the importance of patient education on the purpose and use of cPRO and clinician engagement to sustain participation. These results guided successful implementation changes and will inform future improvements.

Background: The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) is a widely used measure of insomnia severity. Various ISI research findings suggest different factor solutions and meaningful within-individual change (MWIC) to detect treatment response in patients with insomnia. This study examined an ISI factor solution and psychometric indices to define MWIC in a robust patient sample from clinical trial settings.

Methods: We endeavored to improve upon previous validation of ISI by examining structural components of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models using two large, placebo-controlled clinical trials of lemborexant for insomnia. Using the best-fitting two-factor solution, we evaluated anchor-based, distribution-based and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve methods to derive an estimate of the MWIC.

Results: The model structure for the 7-item scale proposed in other research did not fit the observed data from our two lemborexant clinical trials (N = 1956) as well as a two-factor solution based on 6 items did. Using triangulation of anchor-based, distribution-based, and ROC methods, we determined that a 5-point reduction using 6 items best represented a clinically meaningful improvement in individuals with insomnia in our patient sample.

Conclusions: A 6-item two-factor scale had better psychometric properties than the 7-item scale in this patient sample. On the 6-item scale, a reduction of 5 points in the ISI total score represented the MWIC. Generalizability of the proposed MWIC may be limited to patient populations with similar demographic and clinical characteristics.

Background: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BRCL) is one of the most common causes of upper extremity (UE) lymphedema in developed nations and substantially impacts health-related quality of life. To advance our understanding of the epidemiology and treatment of BRCL, rigorously developed and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are needed. This study aimed to demonstrate the iterative content validity of a modular UE lymphedema-specific PROM called the LYMPH-Q UE module.

Methods: A multi-step iterative qualitative approach was used. Semi-structured interview data from in-depth qualitative interviews with adult women (18 years and older) with BCRL were used to develop the first set of the LYMPH-Q UE scales. The content validity of these scales was demonstrated with patient and clinician feedback. Over the course of cognitive debriefing interviews, additional concepts of lymphedema worry and impact on work were identified as missing from the LYMPH-Q UE module. Subsequently, two new qualitative studies (a focus group and in-depth concept elicitation interviews with patients) were conducted, and two new scales were developed to measure lymphedema worry and impact on work life and their content validity was demonstrated.

Results: Qualitative data from in-depth and cognitive interviews with 15 (age 40-74 years) and 16 (age 38-74 years) women with BRCL, respectively, and feedback from 12 clinical experts, were used to develop and demonstrate the content validity of six LYMPH-Q UE scales measuring symptoms, function, appearance, psychological, information, and arm sleeve. Additionally, data from in-depth interviews with 12 (age 35-72 years) women with UE lymphedema and four focus groups (n = 16 women; age 35-74 years) was used to develop and assess the content validity of two new LYMPH-Q UE scales measuring lymphedema worry and impact on work life. The content validity of the previously established six scales was also demonstrated in these subsequent qualitative studies.

Conclusion: The LYMPH-Q UE is a modular PROM developed using international guidelines for PROM development and can be used in clinical practice, research, and quality improvement to enhance patient-centered shared decision-making. This study's innovative and iterative approach to content validation demonstrates that the LYMPH-Q UE is a comprehensive measure that includes important concepts relevant to patients with UE lymphedema.

Background: The Good Life with osteoArthritis: Denmark (GLA:D™), an evidence-based education and exercise program designed for conservative management of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA), has been shown to benefit participants by reducing pain, improving function, and quality of life. Standardized reporting in the GLA:D databases enabled the measurement of self-reported and performance-based outcomes. There is a paucity of qualitative research on the participants' perceptions of this program, and it is important to understand whether participants' perceptions of the benefits of the program align with reported quantitative findings.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who participated in the GLA:D program from January 2017 to December 2018 in Alberta, Canada. Data were analyzed using an interpretive description approach and thematic analysis to identify emergent themes and sub-themes associated with participants perceived benefits of the GLA:D program. We analyzed the data using NVivo Pro software. Member checking and bracketing were used to ensure the rigour of the analysis.

Results: 30 participants were interviewed (70% female, 57% rural, 73% knee OA). Most participants felt the program positively benefited them. Two themes emerged from the analysis: wellness and self-efficacy. Participants felt the program benefited their wellness, particularly with regard to pain relief, and improvements in mobility, strength, and overall well-being. Participants felt the program benefited them by promoting a sense of self-efficacy through improving the confidence to perform exercise and routine activities, as well as awareness, and motivation to manage their OA symptoms. Twenty percent of participants felt no benefits from the program due to experiencing increased pain and feeling their OA was too severe to participate.

Discussion: The GLA:D program was viewed as beneficial to most participants, this study also identified factors (e.g., severe OA, extreme pain) as to why some participants did not experience meaningful improvements. Early intervention with the GLA:D program prior to individuals experiencing severe OA could help increase the number of participants who experience benefits from their participation.

Conclusion: As the GLA:D program expands across jurisdictions, providers of the program may consider recruitment earlier in disease progression and targeting those with mild and moderate OA.

Background: Cholestatic pruritus and fatigue are debilitating conditions associated with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and can significantly impact patients' quality of life. Pruritus in PBC often worsens at night and patients frequently report sleep disturbance, which contributes to cognitive symptoms and fatigue. Linerixibat is an ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor in clinical development for the treatment of pruritus associated with PBC and was recently assessed versus placebo in the Phase 2b GLIMMER trial. This post-hoc analysis assesses the relationship between pruritus severity and sleep disturbance in participants of GLIMMER regardless of treatment group.

Methods: GLIMMER (NCT02966834), a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, recruited 147 patients with PBC and moderate-to-severe pruritus. Following 4 weeks single-blind placebo, patients (randomized 3:1) received linerixibat or placebo for 12 weeks (to Week 16). Participants graded their itch (twice daily) and its interference with sleep (once daily) in an electronic diary using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS). Weekly and monthly itch scores were calculated as the mean of the worst daily itch score over the respective time period. At study visits, participants completed the 5-D itch scale and the PBC-40 quality of life questionnaire, both of which contain an item specific to itch-related sleep disturbance. The impact of pruritus on sleep was assessed post hoc through correlations between the changes in NRS, 5-D itch, and PBC-40.

Results: Strong correlations were found between change from baseline in weekly itch and sleep NRS scores (r = 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83; 0.91]) at the end of treatment (Week 16), as well as in monthly itch and sleep NRS scores (r = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.80; 0.87]). Patients with improved weekly pruritus score severity category demonstrated reduced perceived sleep interference on average. Itch responders (≥2-point improvement in weekly itch score from baseline) displayed larger improvements in weekly sleep NRS score, 5-D itch, and PBC-40 sleep items, than itch non-responders (<2-point improvement).

Conclusions: A strong correlation exists between changes in pruritus severity and sleep interference in patients with PBC; pruritus reduction could generate concomitant improvement in sleep.

Background: Transition of care from hospitalisation to home is a complex process with potential patient safety risks, especially for patients with multimorbidity. Traditionally, the quality of transition of care has been evaluated primarily through readmission rates. However, interpreting the readmission rates presents challenges, and readmission rates fail to capture the patient's perspective on the quality of the care transition. Insight into the patient's experience with their care or a health service can be provided through the use of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), and the two PREMs Care Transitions Measure 15 (CTM-15) and Partners at Care Transitions Measure part 1 and 2 (PACT-M1 and PACT-M2) assess on the quality of transition of care from the patients' perspective. The aim of this study was to translate, culturally adapt, and assess content validity of CTM-15, PACT-M1, and PACT-M2 for Danish-speaking patients with multimorbidity.

Methods: A two-step approach was used for content validation, involving cognitive debriefing and interviews with patients, representing the target group, as well as quantitative data collection from healthcare professionals representing all three sectors of the Danish healthcare system. The patients were systematically interviewed regarding the aspects of content validity; comprehensibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness. The healthcare professionals assessed the relevance and comprehensiveness of each item through questionnaires, allowing the calculation of a content validity index (CVI). An item CVI ≥ 0.78 is considered good.

Results: The results of the qualitative data indicated that both CTM-15 and the PACT-M questionnaires were considered relevant, and comprehensible, and comprehensive to the target group. The CVI computed at item level determined that PACT-M1 and PACT-M2 demonstrated excellent content validity among the healthcare professionals, whereas the CVI for two items of the CTM-15 fell below the threshold value for "good".

Conclusion: The Danish versions of the PACT-M questionnaires demonstrated good content validity, and the CTM-15 demonstrated acceptable content validity based on qualitative data from patients and quantitative data from healthcare professionals. Further validation of the questionnaires, by assessing their construct validity and reliability is recommended.