Establishing a common metric for self-reported anxiety in patients with prostate cancer: Linking the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer with PROMIS Anxiety

Does Family Functioning Matter? Understanding the Relationship Between Family Interactions and Depressive Symptoms for Caregivers of Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Caregivers of cancer patients are at increased risk of depression and other health challenges. There is limited understanding of the role of the caregiver's own family members in promoting or discouraging mental wellbeing. Family functioning conceptualizes how family members interact to promote a positive family environment and has the potential to impact caregiver mental health. The purpose of this study is to assess the association between family interactions and depressive symptoms among family caregivers of cancer patients.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of baseline data from an NIH-funded randomized control trial of family caregivers of cancer patients recruited from academic palliative care clinics at three sites (2 Midwest, 1 East). We tested for an association between caregiver responses to the Family Quality of Life in Dementia-Family Interactions Subscale and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression Short Form 8A using a block-wise approach to linear modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 246 caregivers were included in analysis; caregivers were mostly White (82%), not Hispanic or Latina/o (96%), and female (65%), with an average age of 55 years. Overall, participants had high family interactions (mean 57.7, sd 11.7) and an average depressive symptom burden (t-score 52.4, SD 8.57). Family interactions was significantly negatively associated with depressive symptoms (b = -.163, se = .057) when accounting for relevant covariates.

CONCLUSION

Family caregivers with more positive family interactions are likely to have fewer depressive symptoms, suggesting family functioning may play a key role in bolstering family caregiver mental health and wellbeing.

Sleep quality and lymphedema in breast cancer survivors: a mixed method analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this convergent mixed methods study was to assess the perceptions and characteristics of sleep in breast cancer survivors (BCSs) and elucidate perceptions of sleep among BCS with lymphedema.

METHODS

Participants were BCS with and without lymphedema. Both groups completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), PROMIS® Sleep Disturbance (8a short form), and wore an actigraph on their wrist to capture sleep/wake cycles for 7 days/nights while logging their sleep using a sleep diary. The coefficient of variation of sleep efficiency was calculated from the sleep diary to assess intraindividual variability. In addition, a subsample of BCS with lymphedema participated in a semi-structured qualitative interview. The qualitative data was analyzed separately, and the themes were applied to provide a more nuanced explanation of the quantitative outcomes.

RESULTS

The BCS with lymphedema (n=23) had a significant difference in PSQI (p=0.002), PROMIS® Sleep Disturbance (p=0.084), and sleep efficiency coefficient of variation (p=0.014) compared to BCS without lymphedema (n=23). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in the actigraphy results. BCS with lymphedema perceived that lymphedema management contributed to their sleep disturbance, further exacerbating their mind/body fatigue.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the foundation for future research to investigate the integration of sleep interventions with lymphedema management for holistic survivorship care for BCS with lymphedema.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

An innovative sleep health intervention designed to consider the unique factors contributing to sleep disturbance in BCS with lymphedema will fill a gap in their post-cancer treatment quality of life.

Establishing a common metric for physical function: Linking SARC-F and PROMIS® physical function

INTRODUCTION

Aligned with the increasing need for standardized assessment of physical function in older individuals with cancer and other conditions, several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed and published. The aim of this study is to link the Strength, Assistance with walking, Rising from a chair, Climbing stairs, and Falls questionnaire (SARC-F), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) Physical Function Short Form 8c (PROMIS PF 8c), and make their scores convertible, in order to expand the use of both instruments in research and inform clinicians and researchers about the interchangeability of critical cut-off scores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample included 300 participants recruited from an online panel. Participants were included if they had received a cancer diagnosis from a clinician and reported receiving anti-cancer treatment. We conducted five linking procedures and selected an optimal one to generate the crosswalk table between the two measures.

RESULTS

The linked T scores of all five methods showed acceptably small mean differences from the observed T scores, and the standard deviation (SD), and root-mean-squared deviation (RMSD) of the differences were generally similar across all methods. After comparing across all statistics, the Stocking-Lord approach was considered as the optimal approach to compute the crosswalk table for converting SARC-F raw scores to PROMIS PF 8c scores. The crosswalk table shows that the SARC-F cut-off value of 4 between healthy versus symptomatic with a corresponding score of 37 fell in the range of moderate physical function limitation from 30 to 39 on the PROMI PF 8c T score metric.

DISCUSSION

The linkage in this study has potential for improving clinical and research activities for people with cancer and perhaps others with a similar range of physical function. It facilitates the interpretability in scores of both measures on a common metric anchored on general population for further group-level analysis. Researchers can use this crosswalk to harmonize data collected from either instrument without requiring all cohorts to administer the same instrument for a prospective data collection or retrospective data analysis purpose or for a cross-study effectiveness study.

Housing instability and psychological distress in African American cancer survivors: findings from the Detroit Research on Cancer Survivors study

PURPOSE

As health care systems seek to screen for and address housing instability in patient populations, robust evidence linking unstable housing to patient-reported outcomes is needed. Housing instability may increase psychological distress in cancer survivors, potentially more so among African American cancer survivors who are also likely to experience disproportionate burden of housing instability. The purpose of this analysis was to estimate associations between housing instability and psychological distress in African Americans diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

We included survey responses from 2875 African American cancer survivors in the Detroit Research on Cancer Survivors (ROCS) study. We examined how housing instability at enrollment, using an item adapted from the Health Leads Screening Toolkit, related to psychological distress at enrollment, using Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS) 4-item anxiety and depression short forms. Linear regression models adjusted for sociodemographic factors were used to estimate associations overall and stratified by stage at diagnosis.

RESULTS

Approximately 12% of participants reported being unstably housed. Housing instability was associated with significant differences in PROMIS scores for both anxiety (difference: 6.79; 95% CI: 5.57-8.01) and depression (difference: 6.16; 95% CI: 4.99-7.34). We did not find meaningful differences stratifying by disease stage.

CONCLUSION

Housing instability was experienced by over a tenth of this cohort of African American cancer survivors and was related to statistically and clinically meaningful differences in psychological distress even following adjustment for sociodemographics.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

These findings provide evidence supporting screening of housing instability in cancer survivors, especially those from medically underserved populations.

Patient-reported outcome measures for emotional functioning in cancer patients: Content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, FACT-G, HADS, SF-36, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS instruments

BACKGROUND

Cancer and its treatment can have substantial impact on patients' emotional functioning. Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing emotional functioning are available, but differences in content limit the comparability of results. To better understand conceptual (dis)similarities, we conducted a content comparison of commonly used PROMs.

METHODS

We included emotional functioning items, scales, and item banks from the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT-G, Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), SF-36, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS (item banks for anxiety, depression, and anger). Item content was linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) and a hierarchical framework established for PROMIS. Single items could be coded with more than one ICF category but were solely assigned to one facet within the PROMIS framework.

RESULTS

The measures comprise 132 unique items covering the ICF components 'Body functions' (136/153 codings, 88.9%) and 'Activities and participation' (15/153, 9.8%). Most ICF codings (112/153, 73.2%) referred to the third-level category 'b1528 Emotional functions, other specified'. According to the PROMIS framework 48.5% of the items assessed depression (64/132 items), followed by anxiety (41/132, 31.1%) and anger (26/132, 19.7%). The EORTC measures covered depression, anxiety, and anger in a single measure, while the PROMIS inventory provides separate item banks for these concepts. The FACT-G, SF-36, PRO-CTCAE and HADS covered depression and anxiety, but not anger.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide an in-depth conceptual understanding of selected PROMs and important qualitative information going beyond psychometric evidence. Such information supports the identification of PROMs for which scores can be meaningfully linked with quantitative methods.

Patient-reported outcome measures for physical function in cancer patients: content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, FACT-G, and PROMIS measures using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported physical function (PF) is a key endpoint in cancer clinical trials. Using complex statistical methods, common metrics have been developed to compare scores from different patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, but such methods do not account for possible differences in questionnaire content. Therefore, the aim of our study was a content comparison of frequently used PRO measures for PF in cancer patients.

METHODS

Relying on the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) we categorized the item content of the physical domains of the following measures: EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, PROMIS Cancer Item Bank for Physical Function, PROMIS Short Form for Physical Function 20a, and the FACT-G. Item content was linked to ICF categories by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

The 118 items investigated were assigned to 3 components ('d - Activities and Participation', 'b - Body Functions', and 'e - Environmental Factors') and 11 first-level ICF categories. All PF items of the EORTC measures but one were assigned to the first-level ICF categories 'd4 - Mobility' and 'd5 - Self-care', all within the component 'd - Activities and Participation'. The SF-36 additionally included item content related to 'd9 - Community, social and civic life' and the PROMIS Short Form for Physical Function 20a also included content related to 'd6 - domestic life'. The PROMIS Cancer Item Bank (v1.1) covered, in addition, two first-level categories within the component 'b - Body Functions'. The FACT-G Physical Well-being scale was found to be the most diverse scale with item content partly not covered by the ICF framework.

DISCUSSION

Our results provide information about conceptual differences between common PRO measures for the assessment of PF in cancer patients. Our results complement quantitative information on psychometric characteristics of these measures and provide a better understanding of the possibilities of establishing common metrics.

Towards standardization of measuring anxiety and depression: Differential item functioning for language and Dutch reference values of PROMIS item banks

Introduction

The outcomes anxiety and depression are measured frequently by healthcare providers to assess the impact of a disease, but with numerous instruments. PROMIS item banks provide an opportunity for standardized measurement. Cross-cultural validity of measures and the availability of reference values are prerequisites for standardized measurement.

Methods

PROMIS Anxiety and Depression item banks were completed by 1002 representative Dutch persons. To evaluate cross-cultural validity, data from US participants in PROMIS wave 1 were used and differential item functioning (DIF) was investigated, using an iterative hybrid of logistic regression and item response theory. McFadden’s pseudo R²-change of 2% was the critical threshold. The impact of any DIF on full item banks and short forms was investigated. To obtain Dutch reference values, T-scores for anxiety and depression were calculated for the complete Dutch sample, and age-group and gender subpopulations. Thresholds corresponding to normal limits, mild, moderate and severe symptoms were computed.

Results

In both item banks, two items had DIF but with minimal impact on population level T-scores for full item banks and short forms. The Dutch general population had a T-score of 49.9 for anxiety and 49.6 for depression, similar to the T-scores of 50.0 of the US general population. T-scores for age-group and gender subpopulations were also similar to T-scores of the US general population. Thresholds for mild, moderate and severe anxiety and depression were set to 55, 60 and 70, identical to US thresholds.

Conclusions

The limited number of items with DIF and its minimal impact, enables the use of standard (US) item parameters and comparisons of scores between Dutch and US populations. The Dutch reference values provide an important tool for healthcare professionals and researchers to evaluate and interpret symptoms of anxiety and depression, stimulating the uptake of PROMIS measures, and contributing to standardized outcome measurement.

Linking Scores with Patient-Reported Health Outcome Instruments:A VALIDATION STUDY AND COMPARISON OF THREE LINKING METHODS

The psychometric process used to establish a relationship between the scores of two (or more) instruments is generically referred to as linking. When two instruments with the same content and statistical test specifications are linked, these instruments are said to be equated. Linking and equating procedures have long been used for practical benefit in educational testing. In recent years, health outcome researchers have increasingly applied linking techniques to patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. However, these applications have some noteworthy purposes and associated methodological questions. Purposes for linking health outcomes include the harmonization of data across studies or settings (enabling increased power in hypothesis testing), the aggregation of summed score data by means of score crosswalk tables, and score conversion in clinical settings where new instruments are introduced, but an interpretable connection to historical data is needed. When two PRO instruments are linked, assumptions for equating are typically not met and the extent to which those assumptions are violated becomes a decision point around how (and whether) to proceed with linking. We demonstrate multiple linking procedures-equipercentile, unidimensional IRT calibration, and calibrated projection-with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression bank and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We validate this link across two samples and simulate different instrument correlation levels to provide guidance around which linking method is preferred. Finally, we discuss some remaining issues and directions for psychometric research in linking PRO instruments.

Emotional, informational and instrumental support needs in patients with breast cancer who have undergone surgery: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated emotional, informational and instrumental support needs in patients with breast cancer who had undergone surgery, then identified the variables associated with those needs.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional survey study.

SETTING

Questionnaires were distributed in tertiary hospitals in China between January 2018 and July 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited 477 eligible patients with breast cancer via convenience sampling. Due to exclusions for response errors, the final analysed sample included 461 participants (mean age of 50.9 years). Each completed a questionnaire consisting of a sociodemographic information component and three short forms from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (social relationships short forms, anxiety short form and depression short form). Subsequent analyses included the χ² test, Pearson correlation and multivariate regression.

RESULTS

The T scores for informational support were lower than those for the reference group (general population), while those for emotional and informational support were average. Marital status, childbearing history, lifestyle, employment status, anxiety and depression levels were related to the scores for emotional, informational and instrumental support in this population. The regression analysis revealed that emotional support levels, instrumental support levels, marital status, employment status, anxiety and depression outcomes were predictors for informational support levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Informational support should be specifically assessed and promoted among patients with breast cancer in general, while marital status, childbearing history, lifestyle, employment status, anxiety and depression levels should be evaluated when conducting interventions to promote emotional, informational and instrumental support for those who have undergone surgery. Early and regular screenings for high-risk patients will help nurses identify those who are likely to benefit from targeted preventive interventions aimed at emotional, informational and instrumental support issues.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000035439; ClinicalTrials.gov registry.

Validating the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form v1.0-Anxiety 8a in a sample of young adult cancer survivors: Comparison with a structured clinical diagnostic interview

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to validate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form v1.0-Anxiety 8a (PROMIS-A-SF) against a structured diagnostic interview in order to determine its accuracy and the most appropriate cutoff score for identifying anxiety disorders in young adult cancer survivors (YACSs).

METHODS

Two hundred forty-nine YACSs aged 18 to 40 years (50% male) completed the PROMIS-A-SF and the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (SCID). The SCID was used to determine whether participants met the criteria for an anxiety diagnosis. Receiving operator characteristic analyses were performed to determine the concordance of the PROMIS-A-SF and the SCID as well as cutoff scores with sensitivity (≥0.85) and specificity (≥0.75) appropriate for an anxiety screening measure.

RESULTS

The PROMIS-A-SF was determined to have good overall discrimination in comparison with the SCID (area under the curve, 0.84). A PROMIS-A-SF t-score cutoff ≥ 53.2 (total predictive value, 67.9%) came closest to meeting the study criteria with a sensitivity of 88%, but the specificity was only 65%. In a hypothetical screening example, this cutoff led to moderate levels of missed cases (14%) and a significant proportion of clinical referrals that were unnecessary by SCID criteria (35%). Of the survivors referred for services according to these criteria, less than one-third (29%) would have a SCID anxiety diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS-A-SF demonstrated moderately strong concordance with anxiety disorders measured by the SCID, but cutoff scores did not meet study criteria for clinical screening. Although it may not be appropriate as a standalone screener, the PROMIS-A-SF may be useful for assessing anxiety in YACSs when it is incorporated into clinical practice or when it is combined with other measures.