A PRO-cision Medicine Methods Toolkit to Address the Challenges of Personalizing Cancer Care Using Patient-Reported Outcomes: Introduction to the Supplement

A Consistent Lack of Consistency: Definitions, Evidentiary Expectations and Potential Use of Meaningful Change Data in Clinical Outcome Assessments Across Stakeholders. Results from a DIA Working Group Literature Review and Survey

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) measure how patients feel or function and can be used to understand which patients experience benefits of treatment and which do not. Interpretation of COA data is influenced by how meaningful change is defined. We aimed to compare how different stakeholders define, assess, and use meaningful change for decisions that impact patients.

METHODS

A targeted literature review was undertaken in July 2021 using Medline, Embase, online grey literature search engines, and stakeholder organization websites. Additionally, a stakeholder survey on meaningful change was fielded between March and June 2023. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze responses and identify key themes.

RESULTS

The literature review resulted in 86 references. These revealed different approaches to define, measure and validate meaningful change. There were 248 survey responses. Many respondents felt the terminology and methods for defining meaningful change are confusing. Respondents also emphasized the importance of distinguishing within-patient and between-group change, and defining meaningfulness from the patient perspective (most patients and caregivers do not share a similar definition of meaningfulness as their healthcare professionals).

CONCLUSION

Four key recommendations for defining, establishing, and interpreting meaningful change estimates for COAs are: (1) Be clear on the type of "meaningful change" that is discussed or needed for a COA, (2) Ensure the "patient voice" is informing meaningful change estimates/definitions, (3) Acknowledge that a meaningful change estimate for a COA may differ between populations, diseases, and disease states, and (4) Disseminate data in a way that reduces ambiguity.

Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into the Care of People With Advanced Cancer-A Practical Guide

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are being increasingly integrated into routine clinical practice to enhance individual patient care. This has been driven by recognition of the benefits of PROs in enhancing symptom management, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and overall survival, and reductions in acute health care utilization. These benefits are reflected in the emergence of value-based health care initiatives incorporating PRO symptom monitoring such as the Enhancing Oncology Model in the United States. However, implementing PROs can be challenging and it can be difficult to know where to begin to select appropriate PROs, and effectively display and appropriately interpret PRO data. This manuscript summarizes an educational session at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, which provided practical guidance to clinicians seeking to incorporate PROs into the care of people with advanced cancer. We focus on why it is important to collect PROs in routine care from a patient's perspective, how to select PROs for symptom monitoring (including using static patient-reported outcome measures and newer item libraries), and highlight key pearls and pitfalls in the display and interpretation of PROs. We highlight the breadth of existing resources available to guide clinicians in PRO implementation.

Patient-reported outcome measures in adult HIV care: A rapid scoping review of targeted outcomes and instruments used

OBJECTIVE

There is international interest in the integration of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into routine HIV care, but little work has synthesized the content of published initiatives. We conducted a rapid scoping review primarily to identify their selected patient-reported outcomes and respective instruments.

METHODS

Four databases were searched on 4 May 2022 (Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO) for relevant English language documents published from 2005 onwards. Dual review of at least 20% of records, full texts and data extraction was performed. Outcomes and instruments were classified with an adapted 14-domain taxonomy. Instruments with evidence of validation were described.

RESULTS

Of 13 062 records generated for review, we retained a final sample of 94 documents, referring to 60 distinct initiatives led mostly in the USA (n = 29; 48% of initiatives), Europe (n = 16; 27%) and Africa (n = 9; 15%). The measured patient-reported outcome domains were: mental health (n = 42; 70%), substance use (n = 23; 38%), self-management (n = 16; 27%), symptoms (n = 12; 20%), sexual/reproductive health (n = 12; 20%), physical health (n = 9; 15%), treatment (n= 8; 13%), cognition (n = 7; 12%), quality of life (n = 7; 12%), violence/abuse (n = 6; 10%), stigma (n = 6; 10%), socioeconomic issues (n = 5; 8%), social support (n = 3; 5%) and body/facial appearance (n = 1; 2%). Initiatives measured 2.6 outcome domains, on average (range = 1-11). In total, 62 distinct validated PROMs were identified, with 53 initiatives (88%) employing at least one (M = 2.2). Overwhelmingly, the most used instrument was any version of the Patient Health Questionnaire to measure symptoms of depression, employed by over a third (26; 43%) of initiatives.

CONCLUSION

Published PROM initiatives in HIV care have spanned 19 countries and disproportionately target mental health and substance use.

Patient and Provider Perspectives About the Use of Patient-Generated Health Data During Pregnancy: Qualitative Exploratory Study

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in using patient-generated health data (PGHD) to improve patient-centered care during pregnancy. However, little research has examined the perspectives of patients and providers as they report, collect, and use PGHD to inform obstetric care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the perspectives of patients and providers about the use of PGHD during pregnancy, including the benefits and challenges of reporting, collecting, and using these data, as well as considerations for expanding the use of PGHD to improve obstetric care.

METHODS

We conducted one-on-one interviews with 30 pregnant or postpartum patients and 14 health care providers from 2 obstetrics clinics associated with an academic medical center. Semistructured interview guides included questions for patients about their experience and preferences for sharing PGHD and questions for providers about current processes for collecting PGHD, opportunities to improve or expand the collection of PGHD, and challenges faced when collecting and using this information. Interviews were conducted by phone or videoconference and were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and deidentified. Interview transcripts were analyzed deductively and inductively to characterize and explore themes in the data.

RESULTS

Patients and providers described how PGHD, including physiologic measurements and experience of symptoms, were currently collected during and between in-person clinic visits for obstetric care. Both patients and providers reported positive perceptions about the collection and use of PGHD during pregnancy. Reported benefits of collecting PGHD included the potential to use data to directly inform patient care (eg, identify issues and adjust medication) and to encourage ongoing patient involvement in their care (eg, increase patient attention to their health). Patients and providers had suggestions for expanding the collection and use of PGHD during pregnancy, and providers also shared considerations about strategies that could be used to expand PGHD collection and use. These strategies included considering the roles of both patients and providers in reporting and interpreting PGHD. Providers also noted the need to consider the unintended consequences of using PGHD that should be anticipated and addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Acknowledging the challenges, suggestions, and considerations voiced by patients and providers can inform the development and implementation of strategies to effectively collect and use PGHD to support patient-centered care during pregnancy.

A powerful partnership: researchers and patients working together to develop a patient-facing summary of clinical trial outcome data

OBJECTIVE

Availability of easy-to-understand patient-reported outcome (PRO) trial data may help individuals make more informed healthcare decisions. Easily interpretable, patient-centric PRO data summaries and visualizations are therefore needed. This three-stage study explored graphical format preferences, understanding, and interpretability of clinical trial PRO data presented to people with prostate cancer (PC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 7-day online survey exploring people with PC's preferences for different PRO data presentations (stage 1; n = 30) informed development of a draft plain-language resource sheet containing PRO data. After refining for clarity during cognitive debriefing interviews (stage 2; n = 18), the final resource sheet was circulated to people with PC for broader feedback (stage 3; n = 45).

RESULTS

Although participants expressed preferences for certain graphical formats (pie charts and bar charts), preference did not always associate with interpretability and overall message clarity. Iterative development (stages 1 and 2) led to a final resource sheet, which 91.1% of participants in stage 3 considered useful and informative, and 88.9% expressed interest in receiving similar resources in the future.

DISCUSSION

Findings demonstrate PRO data are relevant to people with PC and highlights that targeted resource sheets can support patient-clinician discussions. Appropriate graphical formatting and use of plain-language text is essential for conveying interpretable PRO data. Data visualization preferences are context dependent.

CONCLUSION

Resource sheets summarizing clinical trial PRO data can be helpful for decision-making in PC. Researchers and patients can work together to develop clear, relevant, sensitive, and understandable resource sheets, which equally consider patient priorities as well as those of scientists.

Health-related quality of life after stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with brain metastases

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and to identify factors associated with this.

METHODS

HRQoL was measured pre-SRS, at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Physical functioning, cognitive functioning, role functioning, and fatigue were analyzed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Motor dysfunction, future uncertainty, visual disorder, communication deficit, and headaches were analyzed with the EORTC QLQ-BN20. Clinically important symptom or functional impairment was assessed following set thresholds. Factors associated with impairment were identified through multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

At baseline, 178 patients were included; 54% (n=96) completed questionnaires at 3 months and 39% (n=70) at 6 months. Before SRS, 29% of linear accelerator (LINAC) patients reported physical and cognitive impairment, while 25% reported impairment for fatigue. At 6 months, 39%, 43%, and 57% of LINAC patients reported impairment respectively. Forty-five percent of Gamma Knife (GK) patients reported impairment pre-SRS for physical, cognitive functioning, and fatigue. At 6 months, 48%, 43%, and 33% of GK patients reported impairment respectively. Except for role functioning, pre-SRS symptom and functioning scores were associated with impairment at 3 months, whereas scores at 3 months were associated with impairment at 6 months. Age, gender, systemic therapy, and intracranial progression were not associated with clinically important impairment.

CONCLUSION

As 33-57% of patients with brain metastases reported symptom burden and functional impairments that were of clinical importance, it is recommended to pay attention to the HRQoL outcomes of these patients during clinical encounters.

The Diagnostic Landscape of Adult Neurogenetic Disorders

Neurogenetic diseases affect individuals across the lifespan, but accurate diagnosis remains elusive for many patients. Adults with neurogenetic disorders often undergo a long diagnostic odyssey, with multiple specialist evaluations and countless investigations without a satisfactory diagnostic outcome. Reasons for these diagnostic challenges include: (1) clinical features of neurogenetic syndromes are diverse and under-recognized, particularly those of adult-onset, (2) neurogenetic syndromes may manifest with symptoms that span multiple neurological and medical subspecialties, and (3) a positive family history may not be present or readily apparent. Furthermore, there is a large gap in the understanding of how to apply genetic diagnostic tools in adult patients, as most of the published literature focuses on the pediatric population. Despite these challenges, accurate genetic diagnosis is imperative to provide affected individuals and their families guidance on prognosis, recurrence risk, and, for an increasing number of disorders, offer targeted treatment. Here, we provide a framework for recognizing adult neurogenetic syndromes, describe the current diagnostic approach, and highlight studies using next-generation sequencing in different neurological disease cohorts. We also discuss diagnostic pitfalls, barriers to achieving a definitive diagnosis, and emerging technology that may increase the diagnostic yield of testing.

Paving the way for patient centricity in real-world evidence (RWE): Qualitative interviews to identify considerations for wider implementation of patient-reported outcomes in RWE generation

Objectives

Real-world evidence (RWE) generation can be enhanced by including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods for collecting and using PRO data in the real-world setting are currently underdeveloped and there is no international guidance specific to its use in this context. This study explored stakeholders' perspectives and needs for using PROs in RWE generation. Barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for wider use of PROs in real-world studies were also investigated.

Methods

Online semi-structured interviews were conducted with international stakeholders: patients, patient advocates, regulators, payers, clinicians, academic researchers, and industry experts. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using NVivo 20. Thematic analysis was conducted based on the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results

Twenty-three interviews were conducted. Participants confirmed that the use of PROs in RWE generation is not yet well established. Participants expressed a mixed level of confidence in the value of PROs collected in a real-world setting. Operational challenges associated with collecting routine PRO data to inform care delivery at the individual level (e.g., setting up infrastructure) need to be addressed. Methodological and other challenges (e.g., financing research) associated with collecting prospective de novo data in a real-world setting should be considered to facilitate PRO utilisation in real-world studies.

Conclusions

Several opportunities and challenges were identified regarding the broader use of PROs in RWE research. Joint efforts from different stakeholders are needed to maximise PRO implementation, with consideration given to each stakeholders' specific needs (e.g., by developing good practices).

Electronic patient-reported outcomes in clinical kidney practice (ePRO Kidney): a process evaluation of educational support for clinicians

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly mandated in kidney care to incorporate patients' perspectives.

Objectives

We assessed whether educational support for clinicians using electronic (e)PROs could enhance person-centered care.

Design

A process evaluation, using a mixed methods longitudinal comparative concurrent design was undertaken of educational support to clinicians on routine use of ePROs. In two urban home dialysis clinics in Alberta, Canada, patients completed ePROs. At the implementation site, clinicians were provided with ePROs and clinician-oriented education via voluntary workshops. At the non-implementation site, neither were provided. Person-centered care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care-20 (PACIC-20).

Methods

Longitudinal structural equation models (SEMs) compared change in overall PACIC scores. The interpretive description approach, using thematic analysis of qualitative data, further evaluated processes of implementation.

Results

Data were collected from questionnaires completed by 543 patients, 4 workshops, 15 focus groups, and 37 interviews. There was no overall difference in person-centered care throughout the study, including after delivery of workshops. The longitudinal SEMs revealed substantial individual-level variability in overall PACIC trajectories. However, there was no improvement at the implementation site and no difference between the sites during both the pre- and post-workshop periods. Similar results were obtained for each PACIC domain. Qualitative analysis provided insights into why there was no substantial difference between sites: (1) clinicians wanted to see kidney symptoms, not quality of life, (2) workshops were tailored to clinicians' educational needs, not patients' needs, and (3) variable use of ePRO data by clinicians.

Conclusion

Training clinicians on use of ePROs is complex and likely only part of what is required to enhance person-centered care.

Registration

NCT03149328. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03149328.

Patient-Reported Outcomes, Digital Health, and the Quest to Improve Health Equity

The theme of the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting is Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research. As we aim to partner with patients to improve their health care, digital tools have the potential to enhance patient-centered cancer care and make clinical research more accessible and generalizable. Using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) to collect patients' reports of symptoms, functioning, and well-being facilitates patient-clinician communication and improves care and outcomes. Early studies suggest that racial and ethnic minority populations, older patients, and patients with less education may benefit even more from ePRO implementation. Clinical practices looking to implement ePROs can refer to the resources of the PROTEUS Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users & Stakeholders). Beyond ePROs, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer practices have rapidly adopted other digital tools (eg, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring). As implementation grows, we must be aware of the limitations of these tools and implement them in ways to promote optimal function, access, and ease of use. Infrastructure, patient, provider, and system-level barriers need to be addressed. Partnerships across all levels can inform development and implementation of digital tools to meet the needs of diverse groups. In this article, we describe how we use ePROs and other digital health tools in cancer care, how digital tools can expand access to and generalizability of oncology care and research, and prospects for broader implementation and use.

Patient-Reported Symptom Complexity and Acute Care Utilization Among Patients With Cancer: A Population-Based Study Using a Novel Symptom Complexity Algorithm and Observational Data

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer in Canada are often effectively managed in ambulatory settings; however, patients with unmanaged or complex symptoms may turn to the emergency department (ED) for additional support. These unplanned visits can be costly to the healthcare system and distressing for patients. This study used a novel patient-reported outcomes (PROs)-derived symptom complexity algorithm to understand characteristics of patients who use acute care, which may help clinicians identify patients who would benefit from additional support.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective observational cohort study used population-based linked administrative healthcare data. All patients with cancer in Alberta, Canada, who completed at least one PRO symptom-reporting questionnaire between October 1, 2019, and April 1, 2020, were included. The algorithm used ratings of 9 symptoms to assign a complexity score of low, medium, or high. Multivariable binary logistic regressions were used to evaluate factors associated with a higher likelihood of having an ED visit or hospital admission (HA) within 7 days of completing a PRO questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 29,133 patients in the cohort, 738 had an ED visit and 452 had an HA within 7 days of completing the PRO questionnaire. Patients with high symptom complexity had significantly higher odds of having an ED visit (OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.59-3.70) or HA (OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 3.36-5.26) compared with low complexity patients, controlling for demographic covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that patients with higher symptom complexity scores were more likely to use acute care, clinicians should monitor these more complex patients closely, because they may benefit from additional support or symptom management in ambulatory settings. A symptom complexity algorithm can help clinicians easily identify patients who may require additional support. Using an algorithm to guide care can enhance patient experiences, while reducing use of acute care services and the accompanying cost and burden.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer: Facilitating and Enhancing the Reporting of Symptoms, Adverse Events, and Subjective Benefit of Treatment in Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide a valid, standardized way of assessing symptoms, adverse events and the subjective benefit of treatment from the patient's perspective. Assessment of PROs is critical in ovarian cancer due to the high morbidity of the disease and its treatments. Several well-validated PRO measures are available to assess PROs in ovarian cancer. Their inclusion in clinical trials can provide evidence on the benefits and harms of new treatments based on patients' experiences to guide improvements in clinical practice and health policy. Aggregate PRO data collected in clinical trials can be used to inform patients about likely treatment impacts and assist them to make informed treatment decisions. In clinical practice, PRO assessments can facilitate monitoring of a patient's symptoms throughout treatment and follow-up to guide their clinical management; in this context, an individual patient's responses can facilitate communication with their treating clinician about troublesome symptoms and their impact on their quality of life. This literature review aimed to provide clinicians and researchers with a better understanding of why and how PROs can be incorporated into ovarian cancer clinical trials and routine clinical practice. We discuss the importance of assessing PROs throughout the ovarian cancer disease and treatment trajectory in both clinical trials and clinical practice, and provide examples from existing literature to illustrate the uses of PROs as the goals of treatment change in each setting.

Common Patient-Reported Outcomes Within the Food and Drug Administration Voice of the Patient Reports

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of disease-specific patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) often argue disease-agnostic measures do not adequately capture their patient population's experience. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) provides a disease-agnostic domain set that may adequately cover many diseases. This study seeks to investigate whether PROMIS's quality of life domain coverage can span patient-reported outcomes (PROs) elicited from patients across unrelated diseases.

METHODS

The Food and Drug Administration Voice of the Patient reports were an initiative to elevate patient voices regarding their condition and associated treatments. Two reviewers extracted patient-reported health-related (quality of life) domains from the reports and categorized them into PROMIS domains or non-PROMIS domains. Domain coverage was summarized for each report. Any extracted PROs not covered by PROMIS domains were placed in an "other" category and analyzed for common themes.

RESULTS

Across 26 reports, PROMIS covered 216 of 374 (70%) of the reports' PRO domains. The heritable bleeding disorders report had the highest coverage (82%). Human immunodeficiency virus had the lowest coverage (50%). The most common PROMIS domain, "ability to participate in social roles," appeared in 25 reports (96%). The most common domains not included in PROMIS were stigma, sensitivities, and sensory deficits as evident in 19 (73%), 18 (69%), and 18 reports (69%), respectively. If the top 3 unincluded domains were amended into PROMIS, the total domain coverage would increase to 84%.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO domains elicited in the Food and Drug Administration Voice of the Patient reports were widely captured by PROMIS, suggesting domains patients experience contain enough overlap to be recorded by appropriate PROMIS domains. PROMIS could increase its coverage by adding domains.

Real-World Adherence to Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring as a Cancer Care Quality Metric

PURPOSE:

Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients with advanced solid malignancies is an evidence-based practice and critical component of high-quality cancer care, but real-world adherence is poorly characterized. We sought to describe real-world adherence to PRO monitoring and its potential predictors.

METHODS:

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using deidentified electronic health record data from a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center, encompassing one academic and two community sites. Participants included individuals with lung cancer receiving systemic therapy from January 1 to December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was patient-level adherence, defined as the proportion of treatment visits during which a PRO questionnaire (spanning symptoms, functional status, and global quality-of-life domains) was completed within 30 days. Practice-level performance was calculated as unadjusted mean patient-level adherence. We modeled patient-level adherence using multivariable ordinary least squares regression and identified covariates associated with adherence using a significance threshold of P < .05.

RESULTS:

In 2019, there were 18,604 encounters for 1,105 patients with lung cancer (mean [standard deviation] age 65.8 [10.2] years; 621 [56.2%] female; 216 [19.6%] Black) receiving systemic therapy. The mean patient-level PRO adherence ranged from 27.2% to 70.0% across sites and was 49.4% overall. Advanced age (≥ 65 years) and Black or African American race were negatively associated with PRO adherence ( P < .01).

CONCLUSION:

Across this real-world cohort of patients undergoing treatment for lung cancer, adherence to PRO monitoring lagged that achieved in seminal clinical trials, with potential age- and race-based disparities, demonstrating an implementation gap that could be addressed with standardized reporting of an adherence-based quality metric.

Feedback of aggregate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data to clinicians and hospital end users: findings from an Australian codesign workshop process

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to measure the patient's perspective of their outcomes following healthcare interventions. The aim of this study was to determine the preferred formats for reporting service-level PROs data to clinicians, researchers and managers to support greater utility of these data to improve healthcare and patient outcomes.

SETTING

Healthcare professionals receiving PRO data feedback at the health service level.

PARTICIPANTS

An interdisciplinary Project Working Group comprised of clinicians participated in three workshops to codesign reporting templates of summarised PRO data (modified Rankin Scale, EuroQol Five Dimension Descriptive System, EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) using a modified Delphi process. An electronic survey was then distributed to short list the preferred templates among a broad sample of clinical end users. A final workshop was undertaken with the Project Working Group to review results and reach consensus on the final templates.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The recommendation of preferred PRO summary data feedback templates and guiding principles for reporting aggregate PRO data to clinicians was the primary outcome. A secondary outcome was the identification of perceived barriers and enablers to the use of PRO data in hospitals. For each outcome measure, quantitative and qualitative data were summarised.

RESULTS

31 Working Group members (19 stroke, 2 psychology, 1 pharmacy, 9 researchers) participated in the workshops, where 25/55 templates were shortlisted for wider assessment. The survey was completed by 114 end users. Strongest preferences were identified for bar charts (37/82 votes, 45%) and stacked bar charts (37/91 votes, 41%). At the final workshop, recommendations to enhance communication of PROs data for comparing health service performance were made including tailoring feedback to professional roles and use of case-mix adjustment to ensure fair comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research provides guidance on PROs reporting for optimising data interpretation and comparing hospital performance.

EORTC QLQ-C30 general population normative data for Italy by sex, age and health condition: an analysis of 1,036 individuals

Background

General population normative values for the widely used health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), are available for a range of countries. These are mostly countries in northern Europe. However, there is still a lack of such normative values for southern Europe. Therefore, this study aims to provide sex-, age- and health condition-specific normative values for the general Italian population for the EORTC QLQ-C30.

Material and methods

This study is based on Italian EORTC QLQ-C30 general population data previously collected in an international EORTC project comprising over 15,000 respondents across 15 countries. Recruitment and assessment were carried out via online panels. Quota sampling was used for sex and age groups (18‍–‍39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69 and ≥ 70 years), separately for each country.

We applied weights to match the age and sex distribution in our sample with UN statistics for Italy. Along with descriptive statistics, linear regression models were estimated to describe the associations of sex, age and health condition with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores.

Results

A total of 1,036 respondents from Italy were included in our analyses. The weighted mean age was 49.3 years, and 536 (51.7%) participants were female. Having at least one health condition was reported by 60.7% of the participants. Men reported better scores than women on all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales but diarrhoea. While the impact of age differed across scales, older age was overall associated with better HRQoL as shown by the summary score. For all scales, differences were in favour of participants who did not report any health condition, compared to those who reported at least one.

Conclusion

The Italian normative values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales support the interpretation of HRQoL profiles in Italian cancer populations. The strong impact of health conditions on EORTC QLQ-C30 scores highlights the importance of adjusting for the impact of comorbidities in cancer patients when interpreting HRQoL data.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13211-y.

Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy

PURPOSE

The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for individual patient management within clinical practice is becoming increasingly important. New evidence about graphic visualization formats for PROMs scores has become available. This systematic literature review evaluated evidence for graphic visualization formats of PROMs data in clinical practice for patients and clinicians, for both individual and group level PROMs data.

METHODS

Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were extracted from CINAHL, PubMed, PsychInfo, and Medline. Studies included patients ≥ 18 years old in daily clinical practice. Papers not available in English, without full-text access, or that did not specifically describe visualization of PROMs data were excluded. Outcomes were: visualization preferences; interpretation accuracy; guidance for clinical interpretation.

RESULTS

Twenty-five out of 789 papers were included for final analysis. Most frequently studied formats were: bar charts, line graphs, and pie charts. Patients preferred bar charts and line graphs as these were easy and quick for retrieving information about their PROMs scores over time. Clinicians' interpretation accuracy and preferences were similar among graphic visualization formats. Scores were most often compared with patients' own previous scores; to further guide clinical interpretation, scores were compared to norm population scores. Different 'add-ons' improved interpretability for patients and clinicians, e.g. using colors, descriptions of measurement scale directionality, descriptive labels, and brief definitions.

CONCLUSION

There was no predominant graphical visualization format approach in terms of preferences or interpretation accuracy for both patients and clinicians. Detailed clarification of graph content is essential.

Conceptualization of utility in translational clinical genomics research

Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders.

Knowledge translation resources to support the use of quality of life assessment tools for the care of older adults living at home and their family caregivers

Purpose

To support the use of quality of life (QOL) assessment tools for older adults, we developed knowledge translation (KT) resources tailored for four audiences: (1) older adults and their family caregivers (micro), (2) healthcare providers (micro), (3) healthcare managers and leaders (meso), and (4) government leaders and decision-makers (macro). Our objectives were to (1) describe knowledge gaps and resources and (2) develop corresponding tailored KT resources to support use of QOL assessment tools by each of the micro-, meso-, and macro-audiences.

Methods

Data were collected in two phases through semi-structured interviews/focus groups with the four audiences in Canada. Data were analyzed using qualitative description analysis. KT resources were iteratively refined through formative evaluation.

Results

Older adults and family caregivers (N = 12) wanted basic knowledge about what “QOL assessment” meant and how it could improve their care. Healthcare providers (N = 13) needed practical solutions on how to integrate QOL assessment tools in their practice. Healthcare managers and leaders (N = 14) desired information about using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in healthcare programs and quality improvement. Government leaders and decision-makers (N = 11) needed to know how to access, use, and interpret PROM and PREM information for decision-making purposes. Based on these insights and evidence-based sources, we developed KT resources to introduce QOL assessment through 8 infographic brochures, 1 whiteboard animation, 1 live-action video, and a webpage.

Conclusion

Our study affirms the need to tailor KT resources on QOL assessment for different audiences. Our KT resources are available: www.healthyqol.com/older-adults.

Utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in ambulatory oncology in Alberta: Digital reporting at the micro, meso and macro level

Cancer patients experience numerous distressing symptoms and concerns across the course of their illness, which negatively influence their quality of life. Regardless of cancer type, unmanaged symptoms can lead to adverse downstream consequences. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) can be used to inform patient care and lead to targeted symptom management but simply gathering this information does not improve outcomes for the patient. Patient generated information must be easy for the clinicians to access and interpret if it is to be used to inform care delivery in ambulatory oncology facilities. This pragmatic work responded to this need. One Canadian provincial ambulatory oncology jurisdiction implemented digital tracking of PROMs over time in the provincial Electronic Medical Record (EMR) to support full integration of PROMs into standard care workflows and processes. Due to an inability within the EMR for direct patient entry, a hybrid data-entry was designed where the patient completes a paper-based PROM in the waiting room, and after clinical review, a clinician documents this along with their clinical assessment in the EMR. Several digital dashboards were developed which report PROMs data at the micro (individual), meso (clinic) and macro (program) levels. Using PROMs routinely in these provincial practice settings has numerous benefits including enhanced patient-clinician communication, assisting with problem detection, management of symptoms, and improving outcomes for patients. There are over 60,000 unique patients represented in our PROMs database, and over 300,000 unique screening events captured. The PROMs data is now used at all levels of the provincial cancer jurisdiction to provide targeted person centred care (micro), to staff appropriately at a clinic or program level (meso), and for capacity planning for provincial programs (macro). A new provincial EMR is currently being implemented which has an associated patient portal. Based on the success of this work, integration of direct entry of PROMs by the patient prior to the appointment and an associated workflow for symptom management is underway in this jurisdiction.

Using Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) Modelling to Forecast Symptom Complexity in an Ambulatory Oncology Clinic: Harnessing Predictive Analytics and Patient-Reported Outcomes

An increasing incidence of cancer has led to high patient volumes and time challenges in ambulatory oncology clinics. By knowing how many patients are experiencing complex care needs in advance, clinic scheduling and staff allocation adjustments could be made to provide patients with longer or shorter timeslots to address symptom complexity. In this study, we used predictive analytics to forecast the percentage of patients with high symptom complexity in one clinic population in a given time period. Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) modelling was utilized with patient-reported outcome (PRO) data and patient demographic information collected over 24 weeks. Eight additional weeks of symptom complexity data were collected and compared to assess the accuracy of the forecasting model. The predicted symptom complexity levels were compared with observation data and a mean absolute predicting error of 5.9% was determined, indicating the model’s satisfactory accuracy for forecasting symptom complexity levels among patients in this clinic population. By using a larger sample and additional predictors, this model could be applied to other clinics to allow for tailored scheduling and staff allocation based on symptom complexity forecasting and inform system level models of care to improve outcomes and provide higher quality patient care.

Choosing and Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice

The increasing use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is forcing clinicians and health care systems to decide which to select and how to incorporate them into their records and clinical workflows. This overview addresses 3 topics related to these concerns. First, a literature review summarizes key psychometric and practical factors (such as reliability, responsiveness, computer adaptive testing, and interpretability) in choosing PROs for clinical practice. Second, 3 clinical decision support issues are highlighted: gathering PROs, electronic health record effect on providers, and incorporating PROs into clinical decision support design and implementation. Lastly, the salience of crosscutting domains as well as 9 key pragmatic decisions are reviewed. Crosscutting domains are those that are relevant across most medical and mental health conditions, such as the SPADE symptom pentad (sleep problems, pain, anxiety, depression, low energy/fatigue) and physical functioning. The 9 pragmatic decisions include (1) generic vs disease-specific scales; (2) single- vs multidomain scales; (3) universal scales vs user-choice selection; (4) number of domains to measure; (5) prioritization of domains when multiple domains are assessed; (6) action thresholds; (7) clinical purpose (screening vs monitoring); as well as the (8) frequency and (9) logistical aspects of PRO administration.

Validating a Patient-Reported Outcomes-Derived Algorithm for Classifying Symptom Complexity Levels Among Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

The patient-reported outcomes (PROs) symptom complexity algorithm, derived from self-reported symptom scores using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and concerns indicated on the Canadian Problem Checklist, has not been validated extensively.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review study using data from the Alberta Cancer Registry and electronic medical records from Alberta Health Services. The sample includes patients with cancer who visited a cancer facility in Alberta, Canada, from February 2016 through November 2017 (n=1,466).

RESULTS

The effect size (d=1.2) indicates that the magnitude of difference in health status between the severe- and low-complexity groups is large. The symptom complexity algorithm effectively classified subgroups of patients with cancer with distinct health status. Using Karnofsky performance status, the algorithm shows a sensitivity of 70.3%, specificity of 84.1%, positive predictive value of 79.1%, negative predictive value of 76.7%, and accuracy of 77.7%. An area under the receiver operating characteristic of 0.824 was found for the complexity algorithm, which is generally regarded as good, This same finding was also regarded as superior to the alternative algorithm generated by 2-step cluster analysis (area under the curve, 0.721).

CONCLUSIONS

The validity of the PRO-derived symptom complexity algorithm is established in this study. The algorithm demonstrated satisfactory accuracy against a clinician-driven complexity assessment and a strong correlation with the known group analysis. Furthermore, the algorithm showed a higher screening capacity compared with the algorithm generated from 2-step cluster analysis, reinforcing the importance of contextualization when classifying patients' symptoms, rather than purely relying on statistical outcomes. The algorithm carries importance in clinical settings, acting as a symptom complexity flag, helping healthcare teams identify which patients may need more timely, targeted, and individualized patient symptom management.

Can PROMIS domains of pain and physical functioning detect changes in health over time for children with sickle cell disease?

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) includes multiple domains that measure pain and physical functioning which are valid and reliable for use in children with sickle cell disease. The responsiveness of these measures to detect changes in health status over time among children with sickle cell disease is unknown.

PROCEDURE

We conducted a prospective cohort study of children presenting to emergency department (ED) with vaso-occlusive crises. Children completed PROMIS surveys in the ED and at two follow-up time points (7-10 days and 1-3 months) after their acute care visit. Linear mixed models were used to determine if there were significant changes in PROMIS T scores over time. We used a patient's global assessment of change in pain question to anchor the changes in PROMIS scores (mean and 95% confidence interval). A change was considered statistically significant if the 95% CI did not include 0.

RESULTS

We found that patients improved significantly in all domains 1 to 3 months after discharge from an acute care visit for pain. In addition, the pain and physical stress experience domains were responsive to change 7 to 10 days after discharge. Using the anchor of change in pain, for children who had considerable improvement in pain, there were significant changes in PROMIS T scores ranging from 6 to 15.

CONCLUSIONS

Relevant PROMIS domains detect changes in children experiencing acute vaso-occlusive crises. These domains can be used in research and clinic settings to measure clinically relevant change in children with sickle cell disease.

Promoting effective use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: themes from a "Methods Tool kit" paper series

OBJECTIVES

"PRO-cision Medicine," using patients' reports of their symptoms, functioning, and well-being to personalize their care, is becoming more prevalent. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed using standardized, validated measures. Research shows that clinicians' and patients' understanding of what the PRO scores mean and how to act on them is often suboptimal. Methods to improve interpretation of PRO scores and action based on PRO results can promote more effective use of PROs in practice.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A recent supplement to Medical Care describes various approaches to address challenges in interpreting and acting on PROs in practice and therefore serves as a "PRO-cision Medicine Methods Tool kit." This commentary provides an overview of the supplement and identifies cross-cutting themes guided by a theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Six papers describe methods for interpreting PROs, and eight papers describe how different PRO systems address interpreting PRO scores and/or acting on PRO results. Based on the theoretical framework, cross-cutting themes are described in terms of (1) providing PRO information, (2) using PRO data, (3) screening for problems and monitoring for changes, and (4) changing management and behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

The PRO-cision Medicine Methods Tool kit provides a useful resource for interpreting and acting on PRO scores to personalize patient care.