Design and Administration of Patient-Centred Outcome Measures: The Perspectives of Children and Young People with Life-Limiting or Life-Threatening Conditions and Their Family Members

What are the anticipated benefits, risks, barriers and facilitators to implementing person-centred outcome measures into routine care for children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions? A qualitative interview study with key stakeholders

BACKGROUND

There is a growing evidence-base underpinning implementation of person-centred outcome measures into adult palliative care. However evidence on how best to achieve this with children facing life-threatening and life-limiting conditions is limited.

AIM

To identify the anticipated benefits, risks, barriers and facilitators to implementing person-centred outcome measures for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional qualitative semi-structured interview study with key stakeholders analysed using Framework analysis informed by the adapted-Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A total of n = 26 children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions, n = 40 parents/carers, n = 13 siblings and n = 15 health and social care professionals recruited from six hospitals and three children's hospices and n = 12 Commissioners of health services.

RESULTS

All participants were supportive of future implementation of person-centred outcome measures into care. Anticipated benefits included: better understanding of patient and family priorities, improved communication and collaborative working between professionals and families and standardisation in data collection and reporting. Anticipated risks included increased workload for staff and measures not being used as intended. Implementation barriers included: acceptability and usability of outcome measures by children; burden and capacity of parents/carers regarding completion; privacy concerns; and language barriers. Implementation facilitators included designing measures using language that is meaningful to children and families, ensuring potential benefits of person-centred outcome measures are communicated to encourage 'buy-in' and administering measures with known and trusted professional.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of person-centred outcome measures offer potential benefits for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. Eight recommendations are made to maximise benefits and minimise risks in implementation.

Development and psychometric testing of a pediatric chronic graft-versus-host disease symptom scale: protocol for a two-phase, mixed methods study

Background

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is a debilitating late complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. It is often accompanied by extensive symptom burden. No validated cGVHD patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure exists to evaluate cGVHD symptom bother in children and adolescents younger than 18 years. This paper presents the study protocol for a multi-center, two-phase protocol to develop a psychometrically valid pediatric cGVHD Symptom Scale (PCSS) and a companion caregiver-proxy measure to capture the symptom burden experienced by children with cGVHD. In the first phase of the study, our aim is to evaluate the comprehension, clarity and ease of response of the PCSS through cognitive interviewing and to iteratively refine the measure to optimize content validity. In the second phase of the study, we will quantitatively examine the measurement properties of the PCSS in children and their caregiver-proxies.

Methods and analysis

Eligible participants are children/adolescents ages 5-17 with cGVHD who are receiving systemic immunosuppressive treatment or have recently tapered to discontinuation. In the first phase, we are enrolling 60 child and caregiver-proxy dyads in three child age strata (5-7, 8-12, and 13-17 years old). Semi-scripted cognitive debriefing interviews are conducted to assess comprehension, clarity, and ease of response of each PCSS item with the child alone, and then jointly with the caregiver-proxy to explore discordant ratings. In phase two, an age-stratified cohort of 120 child-caregiver dyads will be enrolled to evaluate test-retest reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness. Anchors for known-groups validity include the PedsQL module and clinical variables, including cGVHD clinician-rated severity scores. In participants ages 13-17, we will also compare responses on the PCSS with those from the Lee cGVHD Symptom Scale, to gauge the youngest age at which adolescent respondents can comprehend this adult measure.

Discussion

This study will yield a well-validated, counterpart measure to the Lee cGVHD Symptom Scale for use in children with cGVHD and their caregiver-proxies. This new patient-reported outcome measure can be integrated into clinical trials and care delivery for pediatric transplant survivors to improve the precision and accuracy with which their cGVHD symptom experience is captured.

Clinical trial registration

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04044365.

Achieving consensus on priority items for paediatric palliative care outcome measurement: Results from a modified Delphi survey, engagement with a children's research involvement group and expert item generation

BACKGROUND

There is no validated outcome measure for use in children's palliative care outside sub-Saharan Africa. Stakeholders must be involved in the development of such measures to ensure face and content validity.

AIM

To gain expert stakeholder consensus on items for inclusion in a paediatric palliative care outcome measure to establish face and content validity.

DESIGN

This study was conducted in two phases following Rothrock and COSMIN guidance on patient-reported outcome measure development. Phase 1: Three-round modified Delphi survey to establish consensus on priority items. Phase 2: Item generation meeting with key stakeholders to develop initial measure versions. A young person's advisory group was also consulted on priority outcomes.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Delphi survey: Parents and professionals with experience of caring for a child with a life-limiting condition. Young person's advisory group: young people age 10-20 years. Item generation meeting: bereaved parents, academics and clinicians.

RESULTS

Phase 1: Delphi survey (n = 82). Agreement increased from Kendall's W = 0.17 to W = 0.61, indicating movement towards consensus. Agreement between professional and parent ranking was poor (Cohen's kappa 0.13). Professionals prioritised physical symptoms, whereas parents prioritised psychosocial and practical concerns. Advisory group: Children (n = 22) prioritised items related to living a 'normal life' in addition to items prioritised by adult participants. Phase 2: Five age/developmental stage appropriate child and proxy-reported versions of C-POS, containing 13 items, were drafted.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance and feasibility of involving key stakeholders in PROM item generation, as important differences were found in the priority outcomes identified by children, parents and professionals.