Problems eliciting cues in SEIQoL-DW: quality of life areas in small-cell lung cancer patients

How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis

BACKGROUND

In this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.

RESULTS

PROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

Background

The feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy.

Objectives

To (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care.

Design

Two separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care.

Interventions

Aggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings.

Main outcome measures

Aggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being.

Data sources

Searches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking.

Review methods

Realist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care.

Results

Providers were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit.

Strengths and limitations

There was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories.

Conclusions

PROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality.

Future work

Future research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005938.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

A review of the application, feasibility, and the psychometric properties of the individualized measures in cancer

PURPOSE

To identify from the published literature the feasibility and the application of the individualized measures [Patient Generated Index (PGI), Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQOL), and the short form of it (the direct weighting SEIQOL-DW)] in the context of cancer and to summarize the evidence on the psychometric properties of these measures.

METHODS

Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched up to April 2016. All studies were included if they reported information about the psychometric properties of the individualized measures and included patients diagnosed with any type of cancer at any age. Effect size (ES) was calculated to test for the responsiveness.

RESULTS

Fifty-four full articles were reviewed. Full-text assessment of these articles resulted in 27 eligible studies that were included in our analysis. The majority of the studies (81%) reported data on the SEIQOL-DW, and only 15% on the PGI. Fourteen areas of quality-of-life (QOL) concerns were identified by patients using the PGI with the top 4 being family (90%), health (85%), finance (85%), and work (80%). At the global level, the correlation between the individualized and standard measures ranged from 0.45 to 0.49 and, at the symptom level, from 0.26 to 0.51. The ES of the individualized measures was high (ranged from 0.98 to 1.0) in the studies that expected high positive change compared to standard QOL measures (ES = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Individualized measures are feasible and acceptable among people with cancer and could easily be incorporated clinically and used in a research context. Individualized measures are sensitive to change and cover a wide range of patients QOL concerns in comparison with standard measures.

Measuring individual quality of life in patients receiving radiation therapy: the SEIQoL-Questionnaire

PURPOSE

Quality of life (QoL) is one of the most important outcomes in cancer care. Although a number of instruments to measure health-related QoL (HRQoL) exist, there are few suitable instruments to measure individual QoL. The best established instrument is the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQoL). The disadvantage of this questionnaire is its use of semi-structured interviews, which are very time-consuming. The purpose of our study was to transform the SEIQoL into an economical instrument that can be used in clinical trials with large samples.

METHODS

We developed the SEIQoL-Questionnaire (SEIQoL-Q) on the basis of the SEIQoL-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) by transforming the interview guide into a written questionnaire. Patients (N = 1,108) in all three phases of radiation treatment (first consultation, ongoing irradiation, and aftercare) were asked to complete the SEIQoL-Q and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30.

RESULTS

While the average HRQoL measured by the QLQ-C30 was 55.6, the average SEIQoL-Q index was 59.6. The most important life domain was "physical health," followed by "emotional well-being" and "family." Patients attributed the highest level of satisfaction to "home/housing," followed by "family" and "partnership." Male patients were shown to have a significantly better QoL than females. The SEIQoL-Q index correlates moderately with the QLQ-C30 functioning scale "global quality of life" [r = .42 (p < .001)].

CONCLUSIONS

According to our findings, the SEIQoL-Q appears to be a feasible and economical instrument for use in quantitative research among cancer patients in different stages of their disease.

Individual quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma

Objective

The situation of patients with multiple myeloma, whose treatment often implies high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation that can be associated with severe symptoms and psychological distress, has gained attention in recent psychooncological research. This study followed an idiographic approach in order to identify the areas of life most relevant for the interviewed myeloma patients’ quality of life (QoL) as well as their current satisfaction with these.

Methods

64 patients took part in semi-structured interviews according to the SEIQoL-DW Manual (Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life – Direct Weighting). Visual analogue scales (VAS) were used to gain additional information about a general assessment of the present QoL. Qualitative data evaluation preceded quantitative processing. Groups were compared according to the time elapsed since diagnosis regarding specified areas of life, satisfaction with these and their relative weighting. SEIQoL-DW-indices were correlated to the VAS to reflect on an interindividually comparable parameter.

Results

Personal social relationships were mentioned significantly more often as important for QoL than health-related aspects, and in direct comparison were weighted significantly stronger. Regarding the change of areas relevant for QoL over the time elapsed since diagnosis, there was a significant difference between groups concerning the area of spirituality. Satisfaction differed significantly between groups for the field of leisure.

Conclusion

The results for the interviewed patients with multiple myeloma point out the need to take into account the importance of social and individual aspects when reflecting on QoL. Similar findings have been reported for different samples. The relevance of an individualized approach is illustrated by the fact that individually named areas of life were rated comparatively strongly in their importance for the patients’ QoL. An overall assessment for the current QoL by means of VAS is regarded as an adequate supplement to the SEIQoL-Profile and an alternative to the SEIQoL-DW-Index.

Integrating cancer patients' perspectives into treatment decisions and treatment evaluation using patient-reported outcomes--a concept paper

Patient-reported outcomes are an important tool in clinical research. In the setting of cancer treatments, benefit of therapy is essentially characterised by improvement of survival as well as quality of life (QoL). A standardised instrument to assess QoL is the standardised QoL questionnaire of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment (EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire). QoL instruments provide data on different aspects (domains) of the framework of QoL. Using these questionnaires in studies provides data on how a treatment affects QoL in a group of patients. The goal of our concept is to individualise QoL and to use validated instruments in order to integrate patients' perspectives and aims into treatment assessment, planning and control. We propose to use the domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and to ask the patient to determine which objectives besides survival are relevant for him and should be achieved by treatment. These individual goals can be used in a process of shared decision-making to choose and monitor treatment. In clinical studies, this approach would allow to recruit more patients who would most probably benefit from the therapy. In addition, supportive data could be gathered in correlation to treatment goals and actual benefits.

Psychische Störungen und individuelle Lebensqualität bei der chronisch progredient-terminalen Erkrankung „Amyotrophe Lateralsklerose (ALS)”

Theoretischer Hintergrund: Die Krankheitsbewältigung spielt eine wichtige Rolle für die psychische Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden von Patienten mit amyotropher Lateralsklerose (ALS). Fragestellung: Die vorliegende Studie untersuchte Angst, Depression und individuelle Lebensqualität sowie assoziierte Faktoren bei ALS. Methode: Die Stichprobe umfasste 39 ALS-Patienten (20 Frauen, Durchschnittsalter 58 Jahre, Durchschnitts-Erkrankungsdauer 2.4 Jahre). Eingesetzt wurden die Sektionen A, D, F und teilweise J des SKID-I, das ALS-Depressionsinventar (ADI-12), der Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life–Direct Weigthening (SEIQoL-DW) und die Liste zur Erfassung von Verstärkern (LEV). Ergebnisse: Auftretenshäufigkeiten für eine Major Depression Episode: 10 %, für depressive Störungen insgesamt: 23 %, für Angststörungen: 21 %. Die Erstmanifestation einer Major Depression lag bei 4 von 9 Patienten vor der ALS-Diagnose. Nur die Hälfte der Patienten mit der Depressions-Lebenszeitdiagnose erlebte nach der ALS-Diagnose eine weitere Episode. Depressionen waren assoziiert mit weiblichem Geschlecht, einem geringeren Bildungsniveau, geringerer Lebensqualität und einer geringeren Anzahl positiv verstärkender Aktivitäten. Die individuelle Lebensqualität (iLQ) lag bei 72 von 100. Depressive Patienten zeigten dabei eine stärkere Orientierung auf die Gesundheit als nicht depressive Patienten. Schlussfolgerung: Trotz hoher individueller Lebensqualität traten Depressionen und Angststörungen gehäuft auf. Psychotherapeutische Unterstützung ist angezeigt, vor allem im Sinne einer Einstellungs- und Werteveränderung, beim Aufbau oder Erhalt von Verstärkern sowie als kognitive Therapie bei erlebtem Kontrollverlust.

Felicitometric hermeneutics: interpreting quality of life measurements

The use of quality of life (QOL) outcomes in clinical trials is increasing as a number of practical, ethical, methodological, and regulatory reasons for their use have become apparent. It is important, then, that QOL measurements and differences between QOL scores be readily interpretable. We study interpretation in two contexts: when determining QOL and when basing decisions on QOL differences. We consider both clinical situations involving individual patients and research contexts, e.g., randomized clinical trials, involving groups of patients. We note the ethical importance of such understanding: proper interpretation and communication facilitate health care decision making. Communication that facilitates interpretation is of moral significance since better communication can attenuate ethical problems and inform choices. Much of what is communication worthy about QOL assessments is determined by the particular QOL instrument used in the assessment and how it is administered. In practice, these choices will be driven by the purpose of the assessment, but, it is argued, to maximize understanding, we should combine the information garnered from traditional standardized QOL instruments, from individualized QOL assessments, and from a recently proposed dialogic paradigm, where QOL is determined by shared conversation regarding the interpretation of texts. And, while some studies can surely succeed using abbreviated methods of administration (e.g., postal surveys may suffice for certain purposes), we will focus on methods of administration involving interviewer-respondent interaction. We suggest that during the QOL elicitation process, interviewer and respondent should engage in a two-way conversation in order to achieve a shared understanding of the "answers" to QOL "questions" and, finally, to reach a shared interpretation of the individual's QOL.

The experience of using the SEIQoL-DW with patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): issues of process and outcome

PURPOSE

To report the experience of using the SEIQoL-DW for the measurement of quality of life with patients with advanced COPD and consider its feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness for a Phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS

The SEIQoL-DW was administered according to its instructions within a Phase II RCT 3-5 times per patient, across 13 patients and the process audio-recorded. Quantitative and qualitative criteria were used to assess feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness. Qualitative analysis of the transcripts and fieldwork notes was conducted using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

The SEIQoL-DW steps (of identifying five quality of life cues, rating their functioning and importance) were completed at 48/51 interviews. However, some respondents were overwhelmed by the scripted introduction, experienced difficulty with cue identification, and focused only on certain types of cues (Step 1); some had difficulty interpreting and rating the concept of Step 2; and some had difficulty interpreting 'importance' and manipulating the SEIQoL-DW disc (Step 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with advanced COPD were able to complete the SEIQoL-DW but analysis of its administration identified practical and conceptual concerns which question the validity of the results obtained. Suggestions for the development of the SEIQoL-DW and future feasibility studies are given.

Somatically ill persons' self-nominated quality of life domains: review of the literature and guidelines for future studies

OBJECTIVE

To review which domains somatically ill persons nominate as constituting their QoL. Specific objective is to examine whether the method of enquiry affect these domains.

METHODS

We conducted two literature searches in the databases PubMed/Medline, CINAHL and Psychinfo for qualitative studies examining patients' self-defined QoL domains using (1) SEIQoL and (2) study-specific questions. For each database, two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the retrieved abstracts and three researchers subsequently classified all QoL domains.

RESULTS

Thirty-six eligible papers were identified: 27 studies using the SEIQoL, and nine presenting data derived from study-specific questions. The influence of the method of enquiry on patients' self-nominated QoL domains appears limited: most domains were presented in both types of studies, albeit with different frequencies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive overview of somatically ill persons' self-nominated QoL domains. However, limitations inherent to reviewing qualitative studies (e.g., the varying level of abstraction of patients' self-defined QoL domains), limitations of the included studies and limitations inherent to the review process, hinder cross-study comparisons. Therefore, we provide guidelines to address shortcomings of qualitative reports amenable to improvement and to stimulate further improvement of conducting and reporting qualitative research aimed at exploring respondents' self-nominated QoL domains.

Quality of life and burden of spouses of Alzheimer disease patients

The objective of the study was to explore, in a sample of spouses of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease patients, predictors of quality of life (QoL) by rating QoL and burden. The authors assessed 97 spouses in a cross-sectional study with the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQoL), Self-Rated Burden scale (SRB), self-perceived stress scale (EDIZ; Ervaren Druk door Informele Zorg/Self-Perceived Pressure from Informal Care), and Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). Patient cognition was rated with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Factors best predicting QoL were analyzed with multiple regression analysis. Eighty-seven (53% male, mean 72 y) fulfilled the SEIQoL internal reliability criteria, and had a mean SEIQoL score of 68.6+/-14.8. Most important QoL domains were condition of patient (31%) and marriage (26%). Caregiver burden scores on SRB, Ervaren Druk door Informele, Zorg, and ZBI were 44.1+/-23.5 (n=67), 4.9+/-2.2 (n=53), and 13.1+/-6.2 (n=53), respectively. Mean patient MMSE score (0 to 30) was 20.3+/-4.2. Spouses experienced lower QoL than Alzheimer disease patients and healthy elderly (historical controls), and perceived moderate levels of burden. Patient cognition is a significant predictor of caregiver QoL. Burden, measured by ZBI, is significantly negatively correlated with SEIQoL. The results underline the importance of implementing health services known to improve QoL and alleviate burden, and to explore new effective interventions.

Listen to their answers! Response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning

Background

Quality of life (QoL) is considered to be an indispensable outcome measure of curative and palliative treatment. However, QoL research often yields findings that raise questions about what QoL measurement instruments actually assess and how the scores should be interpreted.

Objective

To investigate how patients interpret and respond to questions on the EORTC-QLQ-C30 over time and to find explanations to account for counterintuitive findings in QoL measurement.

Methods

Qualitative investigation was made of the response behaviour of small-cell lung cancer patients (n = 23) in the measurement of QoL with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Focus was on physical functioning (PF, items 1 to 5), role functioning (RF, items 6 and 7), global health and QoL rating (GH/QOL, items 29 and 30). Interviews were held at four points: at the start of the chemotherapy, 4 weeks later, at the end, and 6 weeks after the end of chemotherapy. Patients were asked to ‘think aloud’ when filling in the questionnaire.

Results

Patients used various response strategies when answering questions about problems and limitations in functioning, which impacted the accuracy of the scale. Patients had scores suggesting they were less limited than they actually were by taking the wording of questions literally, by guessing their functioning in activities that they did not perform, and by ignoring or excluding certain activities that they could not perform.

Conclusion

Terminally ill patients evaluate their functioning in terms of what they perceive to be normal under the circumstances. Their answers can be interpreted in terms of change in the appraisal process (Rapkin and Schwartz 2004; Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 14). More care should be taken in assessing the quality of a set of questions about physical and role functioning.

Quality of life in palliative care: being at ease in the here and now

Quality of Life (QoL) is an important issue for users of hospice services and may be assessed in a quantitative way. This study set out to evaluate the effectiveness of the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life – Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW). A sequential mixed methods design was used to examine both quantitative and qualitative factors relating to quality of life. Five participants were recruited from an inpatient specialist palliative care (hospice) unit in East Anglia. Each participant completed the SEIQoL-DW followed by unstructured interviews, which were analysed using Giorgi’s (1985) psychological phenomenological method.

It was found that SEIQoL-DW provided an opening or ‘window’ onto participants’ QoL as they travelled from their past to their future. Themes emerging from the unstructured interviews suggest that QoL was about ‘being at ease’ in the ‘here and now’ and was influenced by past experiences and future expectations. Existential and spiritual issues, which were not all captured by the SEIQoL-DW, were of more importance than physical symptoms. This needs to be taken into account when caring for those nearing the end of their lives and particularly when using medications that have an adverse effect on mental acuity.

Change in what matters to palliative patients: eliciting information about adaptation with SEIQoL-DW

This study was carried out to investigate the usefulness of the SEIQoL-DW to elicit information about response shifts in palliative patients. The instrument measures individual quality of life and allows respondents to choose, rate and weight important areas of life (cues). We explored patients' reconceptualizations (ie, change in cues) and their value change (ie, change of cues weights). Results of 21 patients showed what mattered to these patients and how they had adjusted to deteriorating health. There is a risk that repeated measurements do not provide all the information that is potentially present and relevant to explore response shifts. But clear instructions to interviewers, such as careful listening, probing self-evident cues such as health and family, and accurate recording of cues on the forms may overcome this risk. Future research is recommended to explore the possibilities of regular assessments to facilitate better adjustment of patients.