Search

PurposePatient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can promote valuable patient-clinician communication and aid the decision-making process regarding treatment options. Despite these benefits, both patients and doctors face challenges in interpreting PRO scores. The purpose of this study was to identify best practices for presenting PRO results expressed as proportions of patients with changes from baseline (improved/stable/worsened) for use in patient educational materials and decision aids.MethodsWe electronically surveyed adult cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers, and conducted one-on-one cognitive interviews with patients/survivors and clinicians. Participants saw clinical trial data comparing two treatments as proportions changed using three different formats: pie charts, bar graphs, icon arrays. Interpretation accuracy, clarity, and format preference were analyzed quantitatively and online survey comments and interviews, qualitatively.ResultsThe internet sample included 629 patients, 139 clinicians, and 249 researchers; 10 patients and 5 clinicians completed interviews. Bar graphs were less accurately interpreted than pie charts (OR 0.39; p

Background. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials and research studies can inform patient-clinician decision making. However, data presentation issues specific to PROs, such as scaling directionality (higher scores may represent better or worse outcomes) and scoring strategies (normed v. nonnormed scores), can make the interpretation of PRO scores uniquely challenging. Objective. To identify the association of PRO score directionality, score norming, and other factors on a) how accurately PRO scores are interpreted and b) how clearly they are rated by patients, clinicians, and PRO researchers. Methods. We electronically surveyed adult cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers and conducted one-on-one cognitive interviews with patients/survivors and clinicians. Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 line graph formats showing longitudinal change: higher scores indicating “better,” “more” (better for function, worse for symptoms), or “normed” to a population average. Quantitative data evaluated interpretation accuracy and clarity. Online survey comments and cognitive interviews were analyzed qualitatively. Results. The Internet sample included 629 patients, 139 clinicians, and 249 researchers; 10 patients and 5 clinicians completed cognitive interviews. “Normed” line graphs were less accurately interpreted than “more” (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; P = 0.04). “Better” line graphs were more accurately interpreted than both “more” (OR = 1.43; P = 0.01) and “normed” (OR = 1.88; P = 0.04). “Better” line graphs were more likely to be rated clear than “more” (OR = 1.51; P = 0.05). Qualitative data informed interpretation of these findings. Limitations. The survey relied on the online platforms used for distribution and consequent snowball sampling. We do not have information regarding participants’ numeracy/graph literacy. Conclusions. For communicating PROs as line graphs in patient educational materials and decision aids, these results support using graphs, with higher scores consistently indicating better outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The transition out of acute cancer treatment has been identified as a time of stress and uncertainty for cancer survivors, but little is known about how caregivers fare during this period. In this paper, we discuss caregiving work up to and including transition from initial care and the needs of caregivers during transition and beyond.Methods: We held four focus groups with breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors who had completed treatment with intent to cure and two with caregivers for the same population. Participants were affiliated with either an urban academic or rural community cancer center. The discussions focused on cancer-related experiences and needs during the transition out of acute cancer care.Results: Focus groups included 47 people: 28 survivors and 19 caregivers. Three key caregiving themes identified the significance of support for the patient in the clinic, support for the patient in the home, and for caregiver self-care.Conclusions: Discussions revealed aspects of caregiving that created difficulties for the caregiver themselves or between the caregiver and the cancer survivor. Caregiver experiences and needs may warrant explicit attention as survivors and caregivers are adjusting to a "new normal" that is no longer centered on getting through treatment.Implications For Cancer Survivors: Patients and informal caregivers are often conceptualized as a "unit of care"; consideration of the needs of both is important for the provision of appropriate and effective health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials can inform clinical care, but PRO interpretation is challenging. We evaluated the interpretation accuracy and perceived clarity of various strategies for displaying clinical trial PRO findings.Methods: We conducted an e-survey of oncology clinicians and PRO researchers (supplemented by one-on-one clinician interviews) that randomized respondents to view one of the three line-graph formats (average scores over time for two treatments on four domains): (1) higher scores consistently indicating "better" patient status; (2) higher scores indicating "more" of what was being measured (better for function, worse for symptoms); or (3) normed scores. Two formats displayed proportions changed (pie/bar charts). Multivariate modeling was used to analyze interpretation accuracy and clarity ratings.Results: Two hundred and thirty-three clinicians and 248 researchers responded; ten clinicians were interviewed. Line graphs with "better" directionality were more likely to be interpreted accurately than "normed" line graphs (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.01-2.38; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between "better" and "more" formats. "Better" formatted graphs were also more likely to be rated "very clear" versus "normed" formatted graphs (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.44-2.54; p < 0.001). For proportions changed, respondents were less likely to make an interpretation error with pie versus bar charts (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.2-0.6; p < 0.001); clarity ratings did not differ between formats. Qualitative findings informed the interpretation of the survey findings.Conclusions: Graphic formats for presenting PRO data differ in how accurately they are interpreted and how clear they are perceived to be. These findings will inform the development of best practices for optimally reporting PRO findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (eg, symptoms, functioning) can inform patient management. However, patients and clinicians often have difficulty interpreting score meaning. The authors tested approaches for presenting PRO data to improve interpretability.Methods: This mixed-methods study included an Internet survey of cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers circulated via snowball sampling, plus individual in-person interviews. Clinical importance was conveyed using 3 approaches (presented in random order): normal score range shaded green, concerning scores circled in red, and red threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Versions also tested 2 approaches to score directionality: higher = more (better for function, worse for symptoms) and higher = better for both function and symptoms. Qualitative data from online comments and in-person interviews supplemented quantitative results on interpretation accuracy, clarity, and the "most useful" format.Results: The survey included 1113 respondents: 627 survivors, 236 clinicians, and 250 researchers, plus 10 patients and 10 clinicians who were purposively sampled interviewees. Interpretation accuracy ranged from 53% to 100%. The formats in which higher = better were interpreted more accurately versus those in which higher = more (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.58) and were more likely to be rated "very"/"somewhat" clear (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70) and "very" clear (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18-1.58). Red circle formats were interpreted more accurately than green-shaded formats when the first format presented (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.65). Threshold-line formats were more likely to be rated "very" clear than green-shaded (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.71) and red-circled (OR, 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02-1.46) formats. Threshold lines were most often selected as "most useful."Conclusions: The current results support presenting PRO data with higher = better directionality and threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Cancer 2017;123:1848-1859. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published byWiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations aremade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]