Need for numbers: assessing cancer survivors' needs for personalized and generic statistical information

"Numbers call for action, personalized narratives provide support and recognition": a qualitative assessment of cancer patients' perspectives on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) feedback with narratives

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires completed by patients to gain insight in their health-related quality of life. However, patients often find the interpretation of PROMS challenging. A personalized narrative, i.e., a story with patients' experiences tailored to the reader, could help explain PROMs and might be appreciated alongside numerical outcomes. We studied how cancer patients perceive PROMs feedback presented in a regular numerical and a novel narrative format.

METHODS

Cancer patients who completed PROMs in routine clinical practice were recruited. All participants received numerical feedback and a personalized narrative. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to uncover perceptions of both formats. Interviews were analyzed with an inductive reflexive approach to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients with breast cancer, melanoma, and bladder cancer participated. Thematic analysis identified six themes: "Understanding: I get the gist of it!"; "Usefulness: Tell me why I should complete PROMs"; "Format preferences: Numbers are cold, narratives are warm"; "Taking action: Can I do something about my score?"; "Personal relevance: Personalized narratives show me what life has in store for me"; and "Personal relevance: That's (not) me!" Numbers seemed to help participants act, whereas narratives may provide emotional support and recognition. Participants identified with the content of the narrative yet differed in how they related to the main character.

CONCLUSION

Personalized narratives could be a useful addition to PROMs feedback. The studied formats seem to serve different purposes; numbers help to facilitate action, personalized narratives provide recognition.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Personalized narratives may be a useful new way to communicate about quality of life to cancer survivors and help them to envision what the impact of cancer can be.

"R" you getting this? Factors contributing to the public's understanding, evaluation, and use of basic reproduction numbers for infectious diseases

BACKGROUND

We (1) examined the effects of evaluative labels and visual aids on people's understanding, evaluation, and use of the COVID-19 reproduction number (or "r-number"), (2) examined whether people's perceived susceptibility and (intended) adherence to preventive measures changed after being exposed to the r-number, and (3) explored whether these effects and changes depended on people's numeracy skills.

METHODS

In an online experiment, participants from a large Dutch representative sample (N = 1,168) received information about the COVID-19 r-number displayed on the corona dashboard of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. The r-number was either presented with or without a categorical line display (i.e., evaluative label) and with or without an icon-based tree diagram (i.e., visual aid) explaining how the number works. Regarding people's use of the statistic, we measured perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and adherence (intention) to five preventive measures before and after exposure to the r-number. After exposure, we also measured participants' understanding, perceived usefulness, affective and cognitive evaluation, and objective numeracy.

RESULTS

About 56% of participants correctly interpreted the r-number, with highly numerate people having better understanding than less numerate people. Information about the r-number was perceived as more useful when presented with a visual aid. There were no differences across experimental conditions in people's understanding, affective, and cognitive evaluations. Finally, independent of experimental conditions, intention to adhere to preventive measures was higher after seeing the r-number, but only among highly numerate people.

CONCLUSIONS

Although evaluative labels and visual aids did not facilitate people's understanding and evaluation of the r-number, our results show that the statistic is perceived as useful and may be used to stimulate adherence to preventive measures. Policy makers and public health communicators are advised to clearly explain why they are giving these numbers to - especially - the less numerate people, but also how people could use them for behavior change to combat the spread of virus during a pandemic.

The increasing burden of testicular seminomas and non-seminomas in adolescents and young adults (AYAs): incidence, treatment, disease-specific survival and mortality trends in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2019

BACKGROUND

Testicular cancer incidence among adolescents and young adults (AYAs, aged 18-39 years at diagnosis) is increasing worldwide and most patients will survive the initial disease. Still, detailed epidemiological information about testicular cancer among AYAs is scarce. This study aimed to provide a detailed overview of testicular cancer trends in incidence, treatment, long-term relative survival and mortality by histological subtype among AYAs diagnosed in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of all malignant testicular cancers (ICD-code C62) were extracted from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Mortality data were retrieved from Statistics Netherlands. European age-standardized incidence and mortality rates with average annual percentage change statistics and relative survival estimates up to 20 years of follow-up were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 12 528 testicular cancers were diagnosed between 1989 and 2019. Comparing 1989-1999 to 2010-2019, the incidence increased from 4.4 to 11.4 for seminomas and from 5.7 to 11.1 per 100 000 person-years for non-seminomas. Rising trends were most prominent for localized disease. Radiotherapy use in localized testicular seminomas declined from 78% in 1989-1993 to 5% in 2015-2019. Meanwhile, there was a slight increase in chemotherapy use. Most AYAs with localized seminomas and non-seminomas received active surveillance only (>80%). Overall, relative survival estimates remained well above 90% even at 20 years of follow-up for both seminomas and non-seminomas. Mortality rates declined from 0.5 to 0.4 per 100 000 person-years between 1989-1999 and 2010-2019.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of seminoma and non-seminoma testicular cancers significantly increased in AYAs in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2019. There was a shift towards less-aggressive treatment regimens without negative survival effects. Relative survival estimates remained well above 90% at 20 years of follow-up in most cases. Testicular cancer mortality was already low, but has improved further over time, which makes survivorship care an important issue for these young adults.

Communication, perception, and use of personalized side-effect risks in prostate cancer treatment-decision making: An observational and interview study

OBJECTIVE

We investigated how healthcare professionals (HPs) communicate personalized risks of treatment side-effects to patients with localized prostate cancer during consultations, and explored how these patients perceive and use such risks during treatment decision-making.

METHODS

Patient consultations with nurse practitioners and urologists discussing personalized risks of urinary incontinence after prostatectomy were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Patients (n = 27) were then interviewed to explore their perceptions and use of personalized side-effect risks.

RESULTS

HPs explained personalized risks by discussing risk factors, which was appreciated and recalled by patients. Personalized risks were typically communicated both numerically and verbally (70%). When using numbers, HPs always used percentages, but rarely used natural frequencies (14%). Uncertainty was disclosed in only 34% of consultations. One-third of patients used personalized risks in their treatment decision-making by either switching to another treatment or sticking to their initial preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients value and use personalized side-effect risks during treatment decision-making. Clearly explaining the relationship between risk factors and personalized risk estimates may help patients understand and recall those. Practice implications HPs should not only give patients specific and precise numerical risk information, but should also put effort in explaining how the personalized side-effect risks are determined.