Search

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in single-arm cancer studies. We reviewed 60 papers published between 2018 and 2021 of single-arm studies of cancer treatment with PRO data for current practice on design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation. We further examined the studies’ handling of potential bias and how they informed decision making. Most studies (58; 97%) analysed PROs without stating a predefined research hypothesis. 13 (22%) of the 60 studies used a PRO as a primary or co-primary endpoint. Definitions of PRO objectives, study population, endpoints, and missing data strategies varied widely. 23 studies (38%) compared the PRO data with external information, most often by using a clinically important difference value; one study used a historical control group. Appropriateness of methods to handle missing data and intercurrent events (including death) were seldom discussed. Most studies (51; 85%) concluded that PRO results supported treatment. Conducting and reporting of PROs in cancer single-arm studies need standards and a critical discussion of statistical methods and possible biases. These findings will guide the Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials–Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) in developing recommendations for the use of PRO-measures in single-arm studies.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit–risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

PURPOSE Increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in routine cancer care will increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Systems are needed to support remote monitoring for irAEs. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring systems can help monitor and manage symptoms and side effects. We assessed the content and features of ePRO symptom monitoring systems for irAEs, and their feasibility, acceptability, and impact on patient outcomes and health care utilization. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2022 on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review questions were extracted and synthesized in tables. RESULTS Seven papers describing five ePRO systems were included. All systems collected PROs between clinic visits. Two of five used validated symptom questionnaires, 3/5 provided prompts to complete questionnaires, 4/5 provided reminders to self-report, and 3/5 provided clinician alerts for severe/worsening side effects. Four of five provided coverage of ≥26/30 irAEs in the ASCO irAE guideline. Feasibility and acceptability were demonstrated with consent rates of 54%-100%, 17%-27% of questionnaires generating alerts, and adherence rates of 74%-75%. One paper showed a reduction in grade 3-4 irAEs, treatment discontinuation, clinic visit duration, and emergency department presentations, while another showed no difference in these outcomes or the rate of steroid use. CONCLUSION There is preliminary evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of ePRO symptom monitoring for irAEs. However, further studies are needed to confirm the impact on ICI-specific outcomes, such as the frequency of grade 3-4 irAEs and duration of immunosuppression. Suggestions for the content and features of future ePRO systems for irAEs are provided.

Research waste relating to the production and reporting of health and medical research is a major problem. Each year, resources are wasted on research that asks the wrong questions, uses inappropriate designs, includes unrepresentative or small samples, uses incorrect methods of analysis, and is inappropriately reported, disseminated, or translated into decision-making. These issues are pertinent to (health-related) quality of life ((HR)QL)/patient-reported outcome (PRO) research. In an attempt to reduce waste and maximise efficiency, the Lancet’s REWARD (REduce research Waste And Reward Diligence) Campaign invited everyone involved in research to critically examine how they work to reduce waste and maximise efficiency, and to strive to improve the value of the funds invested in the research we commission, deliver, publish, and implement. However, despite nearly a decade since the Lancet series, research waste is still a major problem. In 2021, the Editors of Quality of Life Research journal issued a call for papers on reducing (HR)QL/PRO research waste and optimizing (HR)QL/PRO data. Papers in the special section discuss the many contributors to research waste and the editors, in their editorial, highlight the ongoing issues that as researchers we should all be mindful of, and potential ways in which we could all do our bit to reduce research waste in the (HR)QL/PRO field.

Purpose Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common toxicity of cancer treatment, with potential to significantly impact cancer survivors’ long-term quality of life. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly utilised to evaluate CIPN. However, guidance remains lacking on how to identify fit for purpose PROMs with considerations necessarily differing when used in various research and in-clinic contexts. This study aimed to evaluate evidence about CIPN PROMs measurement properties and propose considerations to optimize CIPN PROM selection for each purpose. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify literature assessing measurement properties of CIPN PROMs. These were evaluated against Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria and International Society for Quality of Life minimum standards. Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the COSMIN RoB checklist. Results Thirty-nine papers evaluating measurement properties of 13 PROMs were included. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Questionnaire (QLQ-CIPN20) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) were the most commonly investigated PROMs and had the most measurement properties meeting established criteria. Conclusion The use of the QLQ-CIPN20 and FACT/GOG-Ntx to assess CIPN in research settings has the most supporting evidence. However other considerations including study aims, endpoints and target population also factor into PROM selection and need to be considered more often when determining the most suitable outcome measure. Evidence of CIPN PROMs use in clinical practice is limited and their adoption to individual-patient level management requires more evaluation.

Purpose Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors experience treatment-effects such as symptoms and functional impairments. There is limited evidence about how these are managed and what services or supports are available in the community. We aimed to identify current practice and available supports for managing consequences of treatment from clinician and CRC survivor perspectives. Methods This qualitative study, informed by an interpretivist constructionist paradigm, included semi-structured interviews. Clinicians with experience of treating CRC patients and adult CRC survivors were recruited across Australia. Interviews explored experiences about problems experienced after CRC treatment and how these were managed. Data collection and analysis, using thematic analysis, was iterative whereby emergent themes during analysis were incorporated into subsequent interviews. Results We interviewed 16 clinicians and 18 survivors. Survivors experienced a range of consequences of treatment amendable to support including allied health, information, and self-management. Barriers to support access included clinicians’ worry about patient out-of-pocket expenses, long waitlists, lack of awareness about existing supports, and perception no therapeutic options were available. Healthcare professionals with expertise in CRC were often difficult to identify outside of cancer settings. Survivorship care could be improved with individualised timely information and identification of pathways to access healthcare providers with expertise in managing consequences of CRC treatment within primary care. Conclusions To improve CRC survivor lives posttreatment, routine assessment of consequences of treatment, individualised care planning involving relevant healthcare professionals, access to supportive care when needed, and improved information provision and engagement of a range of health professionals in follow-up care are needed.

Introduction Failure to incorporate key patient-reported outcome (PRO) content in trial protocols affects the quality and interpretability of the collected data, contributing to research waste. Our group developed evidence-based training specifically addressing PRO components of protocols. We aimed to assess whether 2-day educational workshops improved the PRO completeness of protocols against consensus-based minimum standards provided in the SPIRIT-PRO Extension in 2018. Method Annual workshops were conducted 2011–2017. Participants were investigators/trialists from cancer clinical trials groups. Although developed before 2018, workshops covered 15/16 SPIRIT-PRO items. Participant feedback immediately post-workshop and, retrospectively, in November 2017 was summarised descriptively. Protocols were evaluated against SPIRIT-PRO by two independent raters for workshop protocols (developed post-workshop by participants) and control protocols (contemporaneous non-workshop protocols). SPIRIT-PRO items were assessed for completeness (0 = not addressed, 10 = fully addressed). Mann–Whitney U tests assessed whether workshop protocols scored higher than controls by item and overall. Results Participants (n = 107) evaluated the workshop positively. In 2017, 16/41 survey responders (39%) reported never applying in practice; barriers included role restrictions (14/41, 34%) and lack of time (5/41, 12%). SPIRIT-PRO overall scores did not differ between workshop (n = 13, median = 3.81/10, interquartile range = 3.24) and control protocols (n = 9, 3.51/10 (2.14)), (p = 0.35). Workshop protocols scored higher than controls on two items: ‘specify PRO concepts/domains’ (p = 0.05); ‘methods for handling missing data’ (p = 0.044). Conclusion Although participants were highly satisfied with these workshops, the completeness of PRO protocol content generally did not improve. Additional knowledge translation efforts are needed to assist protocol writers address SPIRIT-PRO guidance and avoid research waste that may eventuate from sub-optimal PRO protocol content.

To ensure clarity in communication in the field of quality of life research, and meaningful use of ‘quality of life’ as a research outcome, requires two things: awareness that there is a range of conceptualisations and definitions of ‘quality of life’, and for any particular study, consistency between the way the term is defined and operationalised in that setting. We aimed to identify how frequently research articles described (HR)QOL as a construct of interest, how frequently they referred to “patient-reported outcome (measures)”, which patient-reported outcome measures were used, and how (HR)QOL was defined. We reviewed all Quality of Life Research articles published in 2017 and recorded whether they described health-related quality of life or quality of life as constructs of interest, and/or mentioned the term(s) patient-reported outcome (measures). We recorded definitions of (HR)QOL stated and questionnaires used. We classified articles according to constructs assessed and instruments used, and examined whether articles citing the same definition used the same questionnaires. We reviewed 300 articles; 65% stated that (HR)QOL was a construct of interest, 27% mentioned patient-reported outcome (measures), and 20% mentioned neither. Fifty-one articles provided definitions of (HR)QOL, citing 66 sources, with 11 definitions cited more than once. PROMIS, SF, EQ-5D, and EORTC instruments were the most commonly used. The only definition and questionnaire consistently used together were the WHO definitions/instruments. These results demonstrate considerable heterogeneity in the definition and operationalisation of (HR)QOL, between and within studies. This limits meaningful interpretation of (HR)QOL scores and complicates literature searches. Investigators should define constructs and select instruments aligned with their definitions.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) is a common complication of cancer treatment that produces functional disability. Increasingly, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to assess CIPN, providing a broader symptom perspective than clinician-graded scales. Understanding when a reported change in CIPN symptoms meets the threshold for clinical significance is challenging. This study aimed to provide interpretation guidelines for validated CIPN PROMs, and thereby enable estimation of thresholds to identify clinically relevant symptoms. Methods: Patients commencing neurotoxic cancer treatments were assessed at 3 timepoints: baseline, midtreatment, and end-of-treatment. Trajectory of CIPN development was assessed by means of CIPN PROMs, EORTC Quality of Life – Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy questionnaire (QLQ-CIPN20), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group – Neurotoxicity questionnaire (FACT/GOG-NTX). Thresholds were estimated for CIPN PROMs using the NCI CTCAE sensory neuropathy scale as the clinical anchor by midtreatment and end-of-treatment. Patients were assigned to a clinical change group according to CIPN development: either no development; grade 1 neuropathy (minimally important difference [MID]); or grade 2 neuropathy (clinically important difference). Distribution-based estimates (SD, 0.5) were also evaluated as supportive evidence. Results: In total, 406 patients were recruited to the study, of whom 62% (n=199/320) developed CIPN by midtreatment and 80% (n=274/343) by end-of-treatment. Anchor-based MID estimates by midtreatment were 5.06 (95% CI, 4.26–5.86) for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 3.54 (95% CI, 2.87–4.20) for the FACT/GOG-NTX. End-of-treatment MIDs were estimated to be 7.32 (95% CI, 6.23–8.40) for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 4.84 (95% CI, 3.98–5.70) for the FACT/GOG-NTX. Distribution-based MID estimations yielded lower values than anchor-based methods, at 3.73 for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 2.64 for the FACT/GOG-NTX at midtreatment and 5.52 for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 3.64 for the FACT/GOG-NTX at end-of-treatment. Conclusions: Findings from the present series aid meaningful interpretation for commonly used validated CIPN PROMs and provide thresholds that serve as guidance on how to interpret score changes, which will be useful for design and evaluation of clinical trials and clinical practice.

Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a chronic condition requiring repeated treatment and endoscopic examinations that can occur life-long. In this context, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important considerations to patients and managing clinicians. We undertook a systematic review to synthesise PRO results relevant to NMIBC treatment to explore trajectories overtime and differences between treatment options. We searched databases AMED, MEDLINE, EMbase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge and Scopus (inception to 5th December 2019), reference lists and contacted key authors to identify studies that reported PROs after NMIBC treatment. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria and extracted findings. Results for PROs were synthesised for treatment groups across three time periods: acute/during induction therapy; during maintenance therapy; and long-term follow-up (> 1 year). Of 3193 papers screened, 29 were eligible. These provided evidence about induction treatment effects, but few reported maintenance or long-term evidence, and evidence about differences between NMIBC treatment options was lacking. A range of symptoms (pain in bladder area, urinary frequency and urgency, pain or burning during urination) were commonly experienced during and soon after treatment for NMIBC. Less common symptoms included fatigue, disrupted sleep and gastrointestinal problems. Treatments for NMIBC can cause symptoms and functional impairment during the acute treatment phase and reduce quality of life. Clinicians should be aware of these impairments to prepare patients for short-term sequelae and enable those with treatment options to exercise preferences in choosing among them. However, gaps in current evidence limit our understanding of PRO trajectories from diagnosis through to long-term survivorship and treatment effects.

International audience; Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials in peritoneal dialysis (PD) are diverse, are measured inconsistently, and may not be important to patients, families, and clinicians. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis (SONG-PD) initiative aims to establish a core outcome set for trials in PD based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders. We convened an international SONG-PD stakeholder consensus workshop in May 2018 in Vancouver, Canada. Nineteen patients/caregivers and 51 health professionals attended. Participants discussed core outcome domains and implementation in trials in PD. Four themes relating to the formation of core outcome domains were identified: life participation as a main goal of PD, impact of fatigue, empowerment for preparation and planning, and separation of contributing factors from core factors. Considerations for implementation were identified: standardizing patient-reported outcomes, requiring a validated and feasible measure, simplicity of binary outcomes, responsiveness to interventions, and using positive terminology. All stakeholders supported inclusion of PD-related infection, cardiovascular disease, mortality, technique survival, and life participation as the core outcome domains for PD.

Aims: Proxy reports are often used when patients are unable to self-report. It is unclear how proxy measures are currently in use in adult health care and research settings. We aimed to describe how proxy reports are used in these settings, including the use of measures developed specifically for proxy reporting in adult health populations. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, PsycINFO, PsycTESTS, CINAHL and EMBASE from database inception to February 2018. Search terms included a combination of terms for quality of life and health outcomes, proxy-reporters, and health condition terms. The data extracted included clinical context, the name of the proxy measure(s) used and other descriptive data. We determined whether the measures were developed specifically for proxy use or were existing measures adapted for proxy use. Results: The database search identified 17,677 possible articles, from which 14,098 abstracts were reviewed. Of these, 11,763 were excluded and 2335 articles were reviewed in full, with 880 included for data extraction. The most common clinical settings were dementia (30%), geriatrics (15%) and cancer (13%). A majority of articles (51%) were paired studies with proxy and patient responses for the same person on the same measure. Most paired studies (77%) were concordance studies comparing patient and proxy responses on these measures. Discussion: Most published research using proxies has focused on proxy-patient concordance. Relatively few measures used in research with proxies were specifically developed for proxy use. Future work is needed to examine the performance of measures specifically developed for proxies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO No. CRD42018103179

Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are a common chronic often undertreated condition, which affects individual's health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Numerous patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been validated to capture HRQoL in patients with VLUs. However, available instruments contain many items, are hard to use in clinical practice, and present with weak responsiveness. This study aims to determine clinical utility of an existing VLU-QoL instrument and to develop a comprehensive PROs assessment framework to guide clinical practice treatment in people with VLUs in Australia. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with VLU patients (N = 13) and their managing clinicians (N = 6) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topics covered content and face validity, appropriateness, and acceptability of the VLU-QoL instrument to determine suitable and appropriate for use in clinical practice. Clinicians and patients agreed that a VLU-QoL instrument was needed in clinical practice. Both clinicians and patients agreed it would be appropriate to answer PROMs questions prior to consultation with clinicians every 3-6 months. However, patients considered that some of the questions are ambiguous and too technical. Patients reported that it would be useful to include additional items relating to daily wound care, compression bandaging, and dressings. Clinicians reported that the VLU-QoL instrument was too long and required restructuring to facilitate utility in practice. A conceptual framework for HRQoL in VLUs included traditional HRQoL components and VLU-specific issues. Overall, the VLU-QoL was well accepted, although changes to make it more concise, comprehensive, and to clearly reflect consumers' perspectives were lacking. The proposed conceptual framework will inform the development of a new PROM for use by clinicians and patients in clinical settings.

Background Evidence supports several countries introducing legislation to allow cannabis-based medicine as an adjunctive treatment for the symptomatic relief of chronic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea, spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS), epileptic seizures, depression, and anxiety. However, clinical trial participants do not represent the entire spectrum of disease and health status seen in patients currently accessing medicinal cannabis in practice. Objective This study aims to collect real-world data to evaluate health-related quality of life in patients prescribed medicinal cannabis oil and describe any differences over time, from before starting therapy to after 3 and 12 months of therapy. Methods Adult patients newly prescribed medicinal cannabis oil by authorized prescribers and under the Special Access Schemes across Australia will be screened for eligibility and invited to participate. A sample size of 2142 is required, with a 3-month follow-up. All participants will complete the EuroQol 5-Dimension; European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-30; Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21; Patients’ Global Impression of Change; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form (SF) version 1.0: Sleep Disturbance 8b; and PROMIS SF Fatigue 13a questionnaires. Patients with chronic pain conditions will also complete the PROMIS SF version 1.0: Pain Intensity 3a and PROMIS SF version 1.0: Pain Interference 8a. Patients with movement disorders will also complete Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL) SF version 1.0: Upper Extremity Function (Fine Motor and Activities of Daily Living) and if chorea is indicated, the Neuro-QoL SF version 2.0: Huntington’s Disease health-related Quality of LIFE-Chorea 6a. All questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 2 weeks (titration), monthly up to 3 months, and then every 2 months up to 1 year. Results Recruitment commenced in November 2020. By June 2021, 1095 patients were screened for the study by 69 physicians in centers across 6 Australian states: Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia. Of the patients screened, 833 (39% of the target sample size) provided consent and completed baseline questionnaires. Results are expected to be published in 2022. Results of this study will show whether patient-reported outcomes improve in patients accessing prescribed medicinal cannabis from baseline to 3 months and whether any changes are maintained over a 12-month period. This study will also identify differences in improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients with different chronic conditions (eg, chronic pain, MS, epilepsy, Parkinson disease, or cancer). Conclusions This protocol contains detailed methods that will be used across multiple sites in Australia. The findings from this study have the potential to be integral to treatment assessment and recommendations for patients with chronic pain and other health indicators for accessing medicinal cannabis. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ANZCTRN12621000063819; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380807&isReview=true International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/32327

Background: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. ‘Healthcare providers’ are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching. Objectives: To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. Main results: Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms. For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. Authors' conclusions: Decision coaching may improve participants’ knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Etat de la question L’objectif etait de developper un questionnaire mesurant les poussees dans l’arthrose et evaluer ses proprietes psychometriques. Materiel et methodes Les items ont ete generes a partir d’entretiens semi-structures et d’un groupe de discussion (patients, cliniciens) en utilisant une approche bilingue. La selection des items a ete faite avec une methode Delphi. Des patients arthrosiques en Australie, en France et aux Etats-Unis ont rempli les questionnaires electroniques. L’analyse factorielle et l’approche du contenu ont ete utilisees pour reduire les items et determiner la validite structurelle. Le questionnaire obtenu (score de 0 a 100) a ete teste pour la coherence interne, la validite convergente et discriminante. Resultats Depuis les 180 items initialement generes, la methode Delphi et comites d’experts ont selectionne 33 items. Le questionnaire comportait cinq domaines et utilisait les modalites de reponse (0 = Pas du tout a 10 = Absolument). Parmi les 398 patients (âge moyen 64 ans) ayant rempli le questionnaire, 70,4 % etaient des femmes et 86,7 % avait une arthrose du genou. L’analyse factorielle confirmatoire retenait un modele a 19 items (RMSEA = 0,06 ; SRMR = 0,04 ; CFI = 0,96 et TLI = 0,94). L’alpha de Cronbach etait > 0,9 pour les cinq domaines et l’ensemble du questionnaire. La correlation entre Flare-OA et les autres instruments etaient conformes aux previsions. La difference de score (31,8) entre les patients avec et sans poussee etait significative (p Conclusion Flare-OA est un instrument valide et fiable, rapporte par les patients atteints d’arthrose du genou/hanche, qui permet d’evaluer la frequence et la gravite des poussees d’arthrose en recherche clinique ( Tableau 1 , Tableau 2 , Tableau 3 ).

BackgroundBody image is a subjective concept encompassing a person’s views and emotions about their body. Head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis and treatment affects several psychosocial concepts including body image. Large numbers of HNC patients are diagnosed each year in India but there are no suitable measures in regional languages to assess their body image. This study assessed the psychometric properties of the Body Image Scale (BIS), a measure suitable for clinical and research use in HNC populations, translated into Tamil, Telugu and Hindi and compared body image distress between language groups.MethodsTranslated versions of BIS were completed by HNC patients recruited from three cancer centers across India one time only. Psychometric evaluation was conducted including factor analysis using principal component analysis and internal consistency reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. Patients completed the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ) C-30 and EORTC QLQ HN-35 measures to enable exploration of convergent and discriminant validity. ANOVA was used to calculate difference in mean values for body image.ResultsOur sample included 621 HNC patients (Tamil = 205, Telugu = 216, Hindi = 200). Factor analysis revealed a one-factor solution and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged between 0.891 and 0.969 indicating good reliability. Hypothesized correlations between similar and different constructs were as expected, supporting construct validity. On the BIS, we found a statistically significant difference (F = 11.0954, P < 0.05) between means of Tamil, Telugu, and Hindi groups, with higher body image scores in Telugu (M = 12.86; SD = 7.65) and Hindi groups (M = 12.52; SD = 7.36) indicating more symptoms/body image distress, when compared to Tamil population (M = 9.28; SD = 10.04).ConclusionThe reliability and validity of the three translated Indian versions of the BIS were maintained, providing a method for assessing body image of HNC population worldwide speaking Tamil, Telugu, and Hindi across the illness trajectory.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings to inform individual patient care. In-depth understanding of end-users’ experiences may help identify factors that promote or hinder their use in clinical decision-making. We aimed to examine stakeholder perceptions of the utility of using PROMs in clinical practice based on real-life experience. Systematic review searching Medline, Embase and PsychINFO from inception to May 2021. Qualitative studies examining patients’ and/or clinicians’ experiences of using PROMs in clinical settings were included. Study screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative data from included studies was analysed thematically. Of 2388 abstracts retrieved, 52 articles reporting 50 studies met eligibility. Five key benefits were identified: (1) promotes active patient involvement (enables goal setting and discussion of sensitive topics); (2) enhances the focus of consultations (prioritizes patient needs); (3) improves quality of care (enables tailored, holistic care and prompts action); (4) enables standardized monitoring of patient outcomes; and (5) enhances the patient–clinician relationship (provides reassurance). Perceived limitations included the capacity of PROMs to shift the focus of consultations; inaccurately estimate problems; raise unrealistic expectations for care; inhibit patient–clinician interaction; lack clinically meaningful information; and not be suitable for all patients. Both patients and clinicians reported benefits of using PROMs across diverse health conditions and clinical settings, but also highlighted several limitations. These limitations shed some light on why PROM use may not always improve patient outcomes and provide considerations for the design and implementation of future PROM initiatives.

BACKGROUND Evidence supports several countries introducing legislation to allow cannabis-based medicine as an adjunctive treatment for the symptomatic relief of chronic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea, spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS), epileptic seizures, depression, and anxiety. However, clinical trial participants do not represent the entire spectrum of disease and health status seen in patients currently accessing medicinal cannabis in practice. OBJECTIVE This study aims to collect real-world data to evaluate health-related quality of life in patients prescribed medicinal cannabis oil and describe any differences over time, from before starting therapy to after 3 and 12 months of therapy. METHODS Adult patients newly prescribed medicinal cannabis oil by authorized prescribers and under the Special Access Schemes across Australia will be screened for eligibility and invited to participate. A sample size of 2142 is required, with a 3-month follow-up. All participants will complete the EuroQol 5-Dimension; European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-30; Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21; Patients’ Global Impression of Change; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form (SF) version 1.0: Sleep Disturbance 8b; and PROMIS SF Fatigue 13a questionnaires. Patients with chronic pain conditions will also complete the PROMIS SF version 1.0: Pain Intensity 3a and PROMIS SF version 1.0: Pain Interference 8a. Patients with movement disorders will also complete Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL) SF version 1.0: Upper Extremity Function (Fine Motor and Activities of Daily Living) and if chorea is indicated, the Neuro-QoL SF version 2.0: Huntington’s Disease health-related Quality of LIFE-Chorea 6a. All questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 2 weeks (titration), monthly up to 3 months, and then every 2 months up to 1 year. RESULTS Recruitment commenced in November 2020. By June 2021, 1095 patients were screened for the study by 69 physicians in centers across 6 Australian states: Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia. Of the patients screened, 833 (39% of the target sample size) provided consent and completed baseline questionnaires. Results are expected to be published in 2022. Results of this study will show whether patient-reported outcomes improve in patients accessing prescribed medicinal cannabis from baseline to 3 months and whether any changes are maintained over a 12-month period. This study will also identify differences in improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients with different chronic conditions (eg, chronic pain, MS, epilepsy, Parkinson disease, or cancer). CONCLUSIONS This protocol contains detailed methods that will be used across multiple sites in Australia. The findings from this study have the potential to be integral to treatment assessment and recommendations for patients with chronic pain and other health indicators for accessing medicinal cannabis. CLINICALTRIAL Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ANZCTRN12621000063819; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380807&isReview=true INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/32327

Background Head and neck cancers (HNC) are one of the most traumatic forms of cancer because they affect essential aspects of life such as speech, swallowing, eating and disfigurement. HNCs are common in India, with over 100,000 cases being registered each year. HNC and treatment are both associated with considerable anxiety and depression. With increasing multinational research, no suitable measures in Indian languages are available to assess anxiety and depression in Indian HNC patients. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of cross-culturally adapted versions of Zung’s self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Patient health questionnaire – 9 (PHQ-9) in Tamil, Telugu and Hindi speaking Indian HNC populations. Methods HNC patients were recruited from three tertiary cancer centres in India. Patients completed the cross-culturally adapted versions of SAS and PHQ-9. We assessed targeting, scaling assumptions, construct validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses), convergent validity, and internal consistency reliability. Results The study sample included 205 Tamil, 216 Telugu and 200 Hindi speaking HNC patients. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated a two-factor solution for PHQ-9 and four-factor solution for SAS in all three languages. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged between 0.717 and 0.890 for PHQ-9 and between 0.803 and 0.868 for SAS, indicating good reliability. Correlations between hypothesized scales were as expected providing evidence towards convergent validity. Conclusions This first psychometric evaluation of the measurement properties of Tamil, Telugu and Hindi versions of the SAS and PHQ-9 in large, Indian HNC populations supported their use as severity and outcome measures across the disease and treatment continuum.

Objectives(a) To adapt the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-patient-reported outcome (PRO) Extension guidance to a user-friendly format for patient partners and (b) to codesign a web-based tool to support the dissemination and uptake of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension by patient partners.DesignA 1-day patient and public involvement session.ParticipantsSeven patient partners.MethodsA patient partner produced an initial lay summary of the SPIRIT-PRO guideline and a glossary. We held a 1-day PPI session in November 2019 at the University of Birmingham. Five patient partners discussed the draft lay summary, agreed on the final wording, codesigned and agreed the final content for both tools. Two additional patient partners were involved in writing the manuscript. The study compiled with INVOLVE guidelines and was reported according to the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 checklist.ResultsTwo user-friendly tools were developed to help patients and members of the public be involved in the codesign of clinical trials collecting PROs. The first tool presents a lay version of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension guidance. The second depicts the most relevant points, identified by the patient partners, of the guidance through an interactive flow diagram.ConclusionsThese tools have the potential to support the involvement of patient partners in making informed contributions to the development of PRO aspects of clinical trial protocols, in accordance with the SPIRIT-PRO Extension guidelines. The involvement of patient partners ensured the tools focused on issues most relevant to them.

The prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been determined in some cancers, but a focussed review in colorectal cancer (CRC) has not yet been conducted. We systematically reviewed PRO predictors of CRC patient survival. We searched four electronic databases (from inception to May 2018), reference lists and professional organisations to identify studies reporting pre-treatment PRO predictors of overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in CRC identified through univariate or multivariate models. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data on study characteristics, median and 1-year survival rates, PROs assessed and model results. In 25 of 27 studies (n = 12,544), at least one PRO was significantly associated with survival. Physical functioning, fatigue, pain and appetite loss predicted OS more often than other PROs in metastatic disease (19/27 studies). One study explored PRO predictors in early-stage CRC, finding emotional well-being and mood predicted OS. In mixed-stage samples (7/27 studies), physical functioning predicted OS more often than other PROs. Few studies modelled PFS, for which few PROs had predictive value. Physical and psychological functioning, pain, fatigue and appetite loss had prognostic significance above and beyond clinical predictors in CRC. Routine monitoring of these PROs may allow earlier detection and amelioration of problems, which may improve quality of life and perhaps extend survival. More research is needed to determine prognostic value of PROs in early-stage CRC, and prognostic significance of changes in PRO scores.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a relatively common cancer which causes a significant health burden, impacting individuals physically and psychologically. HNC treatment may result in facial disfigurement, eating and communication difficulties, and body image disturbances. We aimed to (1) identify HNC-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess body image, (2) evaluate their conceptual coverage, (3) appraise their development process and psychometric properties, and (4) determine appropriate body image PROM(s) for use in the HNC setting. Online databases were searched (July 2007–July 2017) for studies that assessed body image in patients with HNC. Studies were screened for eligibility. In addition, we searched three PROM databases for relevant PROMs. From available body image frameworks, we compiled a conceptual schema consisting of 18 clinically relevant body image issues important in the HNC setting, against which PROMs were assessed. Selected measures were appraised for psychometric characteristics, content, and readability. A total of 245 records were retrieved. 18 studies with PROMs met our inclusion criteria, reporting eight PROMs. The PROM databases searched yielded 62 measures. After screening, eleven measures were short-listed and appraised. The Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS)-59, DAS-24, and body image scale (BIS) cover > 55% of issues within the body image conceptual schema; were developed based on literature, patient interviews, and clinician opinions; and have evidence of internal consistency (Cronbach alpha > 0.7), validity, and responsiveness. We recommend the DAS-24 and BIS as having adequate coverage of HNC-related issues, and suitable for use in future research.

Patient-reported outcomes can be included as end points in pressure ulcer (PU) intervention trials to provide information to inform decision-making and improve the lives of patients. However, the challenge for researchers and clinicians is identifying and choosing an appropriate instrument for each particular application that suits their research questions and clinical context. To provide researchers and clinicians with the information needed to inform choice of patient-reported outcome measures, we compared a generic and disease-specific measures' ability to discriminate between clinical groups known to differ, and determined their responsiveness to change. We performed analyses on a subset of patients recruited to the PRESSURE 2 trial that completed the pressure ulcer quality of life instrument-prevention version (PU-QOL-P) and Short Form 12 Questionnaire (SF12) measures at baseline and 30-day posttreatment. Known-group validity and responsiveness-to-change analyses were conducted. The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both measures at baseline. Known-group validity revealed that some PU-QOL-P symptoms and function scales differentiated between people with category 2 PUs and those without PUs. A less meaningful pattern of results was observed for the SF12 scales, suggesting that the PU-QOL-P is more sensitive to differences between PU and non-PU populations. Responsiveness analysis revealed that the PU-QOL-P was more responsive in detecting disease severity than the SF12. The PU-QOL-P provides a standardized method for assessing PU-specific symptoms and functioning outcomes and is suitable for quantifying the benefits of PU interventions from the patient's perspective. Generic measures are useful for group comparisons of global quality of life domains. Choice of measure for each particular application should be determined by the purpose of the measurement and the information required.

A proxy is someone other than a patient who reports a patient's outcomes as if they are the patient. Due to known discordance with patient reports, proxies are often not recommended in clinical trials; however, proxies may be needed in certain research contexts. We aimed to identify and describe trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) with proxy-reported endpoints.ANZCTR was systematically searched from inception (2005) to 31 March 2017 for trials with proxy-reported endpoints. Primary and secondary endpoints for each trial retrieved by the search were individually coded (proxy-reported: yes/no), and trials with confirmed proxy-reported endpoints were included in the analysis.Of 13,666 registered trials, 469 (3.4%) included a proxy-reported endpoint (867 individual proxy-reported endpoints in total: 62% family member proxy, 22% health professional). Proxy endpoint inclusion did not significantly increase over time (r = 0.18, p = 0.59). Mental health (11.5%), stroke (10.3%) and neurological (8.3%) trials had the highest proportion of trials using proxies. Of the 469 trials, 123 (26.2%) studies involved paediatric patients.Proxy-reported endpoints are included in a small but notable number of studies, which may indicate other types of outcomes are used for patients unable to self-report, or that these patients are under-researched.