Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research最新文献

Background: As new diagnostic imaging technologies are adopted, decisions surrounding diagnostic imaging become increasingly complex. As such, understanding patient preferences in imaging decision making is imperative.

Objectives: We aimed to review quantitative patient preference studies in imaging-related decision making, including characteristics of the literature and the quality of the evidence.

Methods: The Pubmed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies involving diagnostic imaging and quantitative patient preference measures from January 2000 to June 2022. Study characteristics that were extracted included the preference elicitation method, disease focus, and sample size. We employed the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) checklist as our quality assessment tool.

Results: A total of 54 articles were included. The following methods were used to elicit preferences: conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiment methods (n = 27), contingent valuation (n = 16), time trade-off (n = 4), best-worst scaling (n = 3), multicriteria decision analysis (n = 3), and a standard gamble approach (n = 1). Half of the studies were published after 2016 (52%, 28/54). The most common scenario (n = 39) for eliciting patient preferences was cancer screening. Computed tomography, the most frequently studied imaging modality, was included in 20 studies, and sample sizes ranged from 30 to 3469 participants (mean 552). The mean PREFS score was 3.5 (standard deviation 0.8) for the included studies.

Conclusions: This review highlights that a variety of quantitative preference methods are being used, as diagnostic imaging technologies continue to evolve. While the number of preference studies in diagnostic imaging has increased with time, most examine preventative care/screening, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding imaging for disease characterization and management.

Objective: There is an increased use of preference-weighted quality-of-life measures in residential aged care to guide resource allocation decisions or for quality-of-care assessments. However, little is known about their face validity (i.e., how understandable, appropriate and relevant the measures are 'on their face' when respondents complete them). The aim of this study was to assess the face validity of four preference-weighted measures (i.e., EQ-5D-5L, EQ-HWB, ASCOT, QOL-ACC) in older people living in residential aged care.

Methods: Qualitative cognitive think-aloud interviews were conducted using both concurrent and retrospective think-aloud techniques. To reduce burden, each resident completed two measures, with the four measures randomised across participants. Audio recordings were transcribed and framework analysis was used for data analysis, based on an existing framework derived from the Tourangeau four-stage response model.

Results: In total, 24 interviews were conducted with residents living across three residential aged care facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Response issues were identified across all four measures, often related to comprehension and difficulty selecting a response level due to double-barrelled and ambiguous items that have different meanings in the residential aged care context. We also identified issues related to understanding instructions, non-adherence to the recall period, and noted positive responding that requires attention when interpreting the data.

Conclusions: Our findings provide further evidence on the appropriateness of existing measures, indicating numerous response issues that require further research to guide the selection process for research and practice.

Background: Treatment options for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) have broadened, and treatment decisions can have a long-lasting impact on patients' quality of life. Data on patient preferences can improve therapeutic decision-making by helping physicians suggest treatments that align with patients' values and needs.

Objective: This study aims to quantify patient preferences for attributes of chemohormonal therapies among patients with mHSPC in the USA, Canada, and the UK.

Methods: A discrete-choice experiment survey instrument was developed and administered to patients with high- and very-high-risk localized prostate cancer and mHSPC. Patients chose between baseline androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and experimentally designed, hypothetical treatment alternatives representing chemohormonal therapies. Choices were analyzed using logit models to derive the relative importance of attributes for each country and to evaluate differences and similarities among patients across countries.

Results: A total of 550 respondents completed the survey (USA, 200; Canada, 200; UK, 150); the mean age of respondents was 64.3 years. Treatment choices revealed that patients were most concerned with treatment efficacy. However, treatment-related convenience factors, such as route of drug administration and frequency of monitoring visits, were as important as some treatment-related side effects, such as skin rash, nausea, and fatigue. Patient preferences across countries were similar, although patients in Canada appeared to be more affected by concomitant steroid use.

Conclusion: Patients with mHSPC believe the use of ADT alone is insufficient when more effective treatments are available. Efficacy is the most significant driver of patient choices. Treatment-related convenience factors can be as important as safety concerns for patients.

Objectives: This study aimed to quantify adult preferences for adjuvant immunotherapy for resected melanoma and the influence of varying levels of key attributes and baseline characteristics.

Methods: A D-efficient design generated 12 choice tasks for two alternative treatments, adjuvant immunotherapy or no adjuvant immunotherapy. Recruitment to the online discrete choice experiment (DCE) occurred via survey dissemination by eight Australian melanoma consumer and professional groups, targeting adults with resected stage III melanoma, considering or having received adjuvant immunotherapy. The DCE included six attributes with two to three levels each, including 3-year risk of recurrence, mild, permanent and fatal adverse events (AEs), drug regimen and annual out-of-pocket costs. A mixed multinomial logit model was used to estimate preferences and calculate marginal rates of substitution and marginal willingness to pay (mWTP).

Results: The DCE was completed by 116 respondents, who chose adjuvant immunotherapy over no adjuvant immunotherapy in 70% of choice tasks. Respondents preferred adjuvant immunotherapy when associated with reduced: probabilities of recurrence, permanent and fatal AEs, and out-of-pocket costs. mWTP for an absolute reduction of 1% in 3-year risk of recurrence was less for respondents with lower rather than higher incomes, AU$794 (US$527) and AU$2190 (US$1454) per year. Respondents accepted an additional 4% chance of a permanent AE to reduce their absolute risk of 3-year recurrence by 1%. Respondents were willing to accept an extra 2% chance of 3-year recurrence to lower their chance of a fatal AE by 1%.

Conclusions: Almost three-quarters of respondents chose adjuvant immunotherapy over no adjuvant immunotherapy, preferring treatment that improved efficacy and safety. Findings may inform decisions about access to adjuvant immunotherapy following surgery for melanoma.

Background: Qualitative research during the development/testing of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) is recommended to support content validity. However, it is unclear if and how young children (≤ 7 years) can be involved in this research because of their unique cognitive needs.

Objectives: Here we investigate the involvement of children (≤ 7 years) in qualitative research for PROM development/testing. This review aimed to identify (1) which stages of qualitative PROM development children ≤ 7 years had been involved in, (2) which subjective health concepts had been explored within qualitative PROM development with this age group, and (3) which qualitative methods had been reported and how these compared with existing methodological recommendations.

Methods: This scoping review systematically searched three electronic databases (searches re-run prior to final analysis on 29 June 2022) with no date restrictions. Included studies had samples of at least 75% aged ≤ 7 years or reported distinct qualitative methods for children ≤ 7 years in primary qualitative research to support concept elicitation or PROM development/testing. Articles not in English and PROMs that did not enable children ≤ 7 years to self-report were excluded. Data on study type, subjective health and qualitative methods were extracted and synthesised descriptively. Methods were compared with recommendations from guidance.

Results: Of 19 included studies, 15 reported concept elicitation research and 4 reported cognitive interviewing. Most explored quality of life (QoL)/health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Some concept elicitation studies reported that creative/participatory activities had supported children's engagement, but results and reporting detail varied considerably across studies. Cognitive interviewing studies reported less methodological detail and fewer methods adapted for young children compared with concept elicitation studies. They were limited in scope regarding assessments of content validity, mostly focussing on clarity while relevance and comprehensiveness were explored less.

Discussion: Creative/participatory activities may be beneficial in concept elicitation research with children ≤ 7 years, but future research needs to explore what contributes to the success of young children's involvement and how researchers can adopt flexible methods. Cognitive interviews with young children are limited in frequency, scope and reported methodological detail, potentially impacting PROM content validity for this age group. Without detailed reporting, it is not possible to determine the feasibility and usefulness of children's (≤ 7 years) involvement in qualitative research to support PROM development and assessment.

The increased use of telehealth in cancer care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has added to our knowledge and experience of the modality with benefits in terms of efficacy, cost, and patient and healthcare professional experience reported. However, telehealth has also been found not to be universally available to all patients with cancer, nor to be appropriate for every healthcare interaction; additionally, not all patients prefer it. Now that coronavirus disease restrictions have essentially ended and an opportunity to re-assess telehealth provision in cancer care presents, we offer a framework that aims to ensure that the needs and preferences of the patient community are included in the development of telehealth provision. Stakeholders in this process include patients, patient advocates, healthcare providers, healthcare services commissioners, managers, and policy makers. The framework outlines how patient advocates can work with other stakeholders as equal partners at all stages of telehealth service development. The patient advocate community has a unique understanding of the patient perspective as well as expertise in healthcare design and delivery. This enables advocates to contribute to shaping telehealth provision, from policy and guideline formulation to patient navigation. Appropriate resources, education and training may be needed for all stakeholders to support the development of an effective telehealth system. Together with other stakeholders, patient advocates can make an important contribution to optimizing appropriate patient-centred telehealth provision in cancer care.

Background: People with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis can benefit from disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). Several DMTs are available that vary in their efficacy, side-effect profile and mode of administration.

Objective: We aimed to measure the preferences of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis for DMTs using a discrete choice experiment and to assess which stated preference attributes correlate with the attributes of the DMTs they take in the real world.

Methods: Discrete choice experiment attributes were developed from literature reviews, interviews and focus groups. In a discrete choice experiment, participants were shown two hypothetical DMTs, then chose whether they preferred one of the DMTs or no treatment. A mixed logit model was estimated from responses and individual-level estimates of participants' preferences conditional on their discrete choice experiment choices calculated. Logit models were estimated with stated preferences predicting current real-world on-treatment status, DMT mode of administration and current DMT.

Results: A stated intrinsic preference for taking a DMT was correlated with currently taking a DMT, and stated preferences for mode of administration were correlated with the modes of administration of the DMTs participants were currently taking. Stated preferences for treatment effectiveness and adverse effects were not correlated with real-world behaviour.

Conclusions: There was variation in which discrete choice experiment attributes correlated with participants' real-world DMT choices. This may indicate patient preferences for treatment efficacy/risk are not adequately taken account of in prescribing. Treatment guidelines must ensure they take into consideration patients' preferences and improve communication around treatment efficacy/risk.

Objectives: Identify Australian public preferences for antibiotic treatments in the context of antibiotic stewardship.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in Australia to investigate the importance of seven attributes associated with antibiotic treatments and related stewardship practices: contribution to antimicrobial resistance (AMR), treatment duration, side effects, days needed to recover, days before taking antibiotics, treatment failure and out-of-pocket costs. The DCE data were analysed using conditional logit, mixed logit and latent class conditional logit models. The relative importance of each attribute was calculated.

Results: A total of 1882 respondents completed the survey; the main study sample consist of 1658 respondents (mean age 48 years) who passed quality checks. All seven attributes significantly influenced respondents' preferences for antibiotic treatments. Based on the designed attribute levels in the DCE, on average, out-of-pocket costs (32.8%) and contribution to antibiotic resistance (30.3%) were the most important attributes, followed by side effects (12.9%). Days before starting medication was least important (3.9%). Three latent classes were identified. Class 1 (including respondents who were more likely to be older and more health literate; 24.5%) gave contribution to antibiotic resistance greater importance in treatment preferences. Class 2 (including respondents more likely to report poorer health; 25.2%) gave out-of-pocket costs greater importance. The remaining (50.4%), who were generally healthier, perceived side effects as the most important attribute.

Conclusions: Despite concerted public awareness raising campaigns, our results suggest that several factors may influence the preferences of Australians when considering antibiotic use. However, for those more likely to be aware of the need to preserve antibiotics, out-of-pocket costs and limiting the contribution to antibiotic resistance are the dominant influence. Delays in starting treatment were not important for any latent class, suggesting public tolerance for this measure. These results could help inform strategies to promote prudent antibiotic stewardship.

Purpose: To evaluate the measurement properties of the 15-item Singapore Caregiver Quality of Life Scale (SCQOLS-15) in family caregivers of patients with heart diseases.

Methods: The SCQOLS-15 survey was self-administered by family caregivers of patients with chronic heart diseases, at baseline and 1 week later. The criterion validity of SCQOLS-15 and its domain scores was assessed by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) with the Brief Assessment Scale for Caregivers (BASC), Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA), and their sub-scores. Known-group validity was assessed using the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: Of the 327 caregivers included, 65% were adult children and 28% were spouses. The distribution of NYHA classes of the patients was I: 27%, II: 40%, III: 24%, and IV: 9%. There was a positive correlation between the SCQOLS-15 and BASC total scores (ρ = 0.7). SCQOLS-15 domain scores were also correlated with BASC and CRA sub-scores as per a priori hypotheses, with absolute values of ρ ranging from 0.4 to 0.6. The mean values of SCQOLS-15 total and all domain scores were lower among caregivers of patients with NYHA class III/IV compared to those of class I/II patients (each P < 0.05). Among 146 caregivers who completed the follow-up and self-rated a stable quality-of-life, ICCs for test-retest reliability of SCQOLS-15 total and all domain scores were ≥ 0.8.

Conclusion: The SCQOLS-15 is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the quality of life in caregivers of heart disease patients.

Background: Multiple studies have indicated a socioeconomic impact of cancer and cancer care on patients and their families. Existing instruments designed to measure this impact lack consensus in their conceptualization of the issue. Further, various terminologies have been used in the literature (e.g., financial burden, financial hardship, financial stress) without clear definitions and consistent conceptual background. Based on a targeted review of existing models addressing the socioeconomic impact of cancer, our goal was to develop a comprehensive framework from a European perspective.

Method: A 'best-fit' framework synthesis was applied. First, we systematically identified existing models to generate a priori concepts. Second, we systematically identified relevant European qualitative studies and coded their results against these a priori concepts. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were predefined and applied thoroughly in these processes. Thematic analysis and team discussions were applied to finalize the (sub)themes in our proposed conceptual framework. Third, we examined model structures and quotes from qualitative studies to explore relationships among (sub)themes. This process was repeated until no further change in (sub)themes and their relationships emerged.

Result: Eighteen studies containing conceptual models and seven qualitative studies were identified. Eight concepts and 20 sub-concepts were derived from the included models. After coding the included qualitative studies against the a priori concepts and following discussions among team members, seven themes and 15 sub-themes were included in our proposed conceptual framework. Based on the identified relationships, we categorized themes into four groups: causes, intermediate consequences, outcomes and risk factors.

Conclusion: We propose a Socioeconomic Impact Framework based on a targeted review and synthesis of existing models in the field and adapted to the European perspective. Our work contributes as an input to a European consensus project on socioeconomic impact research by an Organization European Cancer Institute (OECI) Task Force.