Assessing quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments

The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools for the selection of instruments for research and clinical practice. Our aim was to assess the quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether the quality has improved since our previous study in 2007.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE between July 1, 2013, and June 19, 2014. The quality of the reviews was rated using a study-specific checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 102 reviews were included. In many reviews the search strategy was considered not comprehensive; in only 59 % of the reviews a search was performed in EMBASE and in about half of the reviews there was doubt about the comprehensiveness of the search terms used for type of measurement instruments and measurement properties. In 41 % of the reviews, compared to 30 % in our previous study, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. In 58 %, compared to 55 %, the quality of the included instruments was assessed. In 42 %, compared to 7 %, a data synthesis was performed in which the results from multiple studies on the same instrument were somehow combined.

CONCLUSION

Despite a clear improvement in the quality of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments in comparison with our previous study in 2007, there is still room for improvement with regard to the search strategy, and especially the quality assessment of the included studies and the included instruments, and the data synthesis.

Design and feasibility of integrating personalized PRO dashboards into prostate cancer care

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a valued source of health information, but prior work focuses largely on data capture without guidance on visual displays that promote effective PRO use in patient-centered care. We engaged patients, providers, and design experts in human-centered design of "PRO dashboards" that illustrate trends in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) reported by patients following prostate cancer treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed and assessed the feasibility of integrating dashboards into care in 3 steps: (1) capture PRO needs of patients and providers through focus groups and interviews; (2) iteratively build and refine a prototype dashboard; and (3) pilot test dashboards with patients and their provider during follow-up care.

RESULTS

Focus groups (n = 60 patients) prioritized needs for dashboards that compared longitudinal trends in patients' HRQOL with "men like me." Of the candidate dashboard designs, 50 patients and 50 providers rated pictographs less helpful than bar charts, line graphs, or tables (P < .001) and preferred bar charts and line graphs most. Given these needs and the design recommendations from our Patient Advisory Board (n = 7) and design experts (n = 7), we built and refined a prototype that charts patients' HRQOL compared with age- and treatment-matched patients in personalized dashboards. Pilot testing dashboard use (n = 12 patients) improved compliance with quality indicators for prostate cancer care (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

PRO dashboards are a promising approach for integrating patient-generated data into prostate cancer care. Informed by human-centered design principles, this work establishes guidance on dashboard content, tailoring, and clinical use that patients and providers find meaningful.

Sensitivity to change of the Beach Questionnaire to behaviour, attitudes and knowledge related to sun exposure: quasi-experimental before-after study

Background

Health questionnaires must present accredited measurement properties such as validity, reliability and sensitivity to change, the latter being essential for interventions to be planned and for evaluating their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity to change of a Beach Questionnaire.

Methods

Quasi-experimental before-after study carried out in 2011, for a study population of adolescents attending schools in the Costa del Sol. First, the questionnaire was administered to the adolescents, after which a multicomponent educational intervention was carried out; finally, three months later, the same questionnaire was re-administered to the same adolescents. Changes were assessed in the categories of each item, using the McNemar test, and the changes in the scores, standardised to a range of 0–100, using the Student t test for paired samples, and including the mean of the differences and the 95% confidence interval. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

228 adolescents, aged 14–17 years, and 55.3% were girls. Statistically significant changes were observed in sunburn experiences, exposure to the sun at mid-day and attitudes to sun exposure and suncreams. For the seven items related to knowledge about sun exposure, a higher rate of correct answers was observed. The analysis of changes, within the standardised range, revealed a significant improvement in the scores for sun exposure habits (MD 4.33; CI 95% 2.2-6.5), attitudes to sun exposure (MD 2.22; CI 95% 1.2-3.2) and knowledge (MD 9.10; CI 95% 7.1-11.1), but not in those for sun-protection practices (MD 0.23; CI 95% -1.2-1.7).

Conclusions

The Beach Questionnaire on behaviour, attitudes and knowledge related to sun exposure is the first such instrument in Spanish language to provide sufficient sensitivity to change. It constitutes a useful tool for epidemiologic research into photoprotection and for skin cancer prevention programmes.