Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2016

01-10-2016 | Original Article

Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice

Authors: Katherine C. Smith, Michael D. Brundage, Elliott Tolbert, Emily A. Little, Elissa T. Bantug, Claire F. Snyder, PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care, but previous research has documented interpretation challenges among clinicians and patients. We engaged stakeholders to improve formats for presenting individual-level PRO data (for patient monitoring) and group-level PRO data (for reporting comparative clinical studies).

Methods

In an iterative process, investigators partnered with stakeholder workgroups of clinicians and patients to address previously identified interpretation challenges. Candidate approaches were then tested in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with cancer patients and clinicians. Interpretation issues addressed included conveying score meaning (i.e., what is good/bad) and directional inconsistency (whether higher scores are better/worse). An additional issue for individual-level PROs was highlighting potentially concerning scores and, for group-level PROs, identifying important between-group differences (clinical, statistical).

Results

One-on-one interviews in a purposive sample of clinicians (n = 40) and patients (n = 39) provided insights regarding approaches to address issues identified. For example, adding descriptive labels to the Y-axis (none, mild, moderate, severe) helps address directional inconsistency and aids interpretation of score meaning. Red circles around concerning data points or a threshold line indicating worse-than-normal scores indicate possibly concerning scores for individual-level PRO data. For group-level PRO data, patients and some clinicians are confused by confidence limits and clinical versus statistical significance, but almost all clinicians want p values displayed.

Conclusions

Variations in interpretation accuracy demonstrate the importance of presenting PRO data in ways that promote understanding and use. In an iterative stakeholder-driven process, we developed improved PRO data presentation formats, which will be evaluated in further research across a large population of patients and clinicians.
Literature
1.
go back to reference U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for industry. Patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist 74:65132–65133 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for industry. Patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist 74:65132–65133
2.
go back to reference Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D et al (2001) Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health 6:522–531CrossRef Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D et al (2001) Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health 6:522–531CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Brundage MD, Feldman-Stewart D, Bezjak A et al (2011) The value of quality of life information in a cancer treatment decision. ISOQOL 11th annual conference, San Francisco, 2005 Brundage MD, Feldman-Stewart D, Bezjak A et al (2011) The value of quality of life information in a cancer treatment decision. ISOQOL 11th annual conference, San Francisco, 2005
11.
go back to reference Snyder CF, Blackford AL, Wolff AC et al (2013) Feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint: a web system for patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice. Psycho-Oncology 22:895–901. doi:10.1002/pon.3087 CrossRefPubMed Snyder CF, Blackford AL, Wolff AC et al (2013) Feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint: a web system for patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice. Psycho-Oncology 22:895–901. doi:10.​1002/​pon.​3087 CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Brundage M, Smith KC, Little EA, Bantug ET, Snyder CF, PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board (2015) Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Qual Life Res Online First. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0974-y Brundage M, Smith KC, Little EA, Bantug ET, Snyder CF, PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board (2015) Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Qual Life Res Online First. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-015-0974-y
13.
go back to reference PROMIS: Dynamic tools to measure health outcomes from the patient perspective. Available at nihpromis.org. Accessed 21 Aug 2015 PROMIS: Dynamic tools to measure health outcomes from the patient perspective. Available at nihpromis.​org. Accessed 21 Aug 2015
14.
go back to reference Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al (1993) The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQC30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365–376CrossRefPubMed Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al (1993) The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQC30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365–376CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice
Authors
Katherine C. Smith
Michael D. Brundage
Elliott Tolbert
Emily A. Little
Elissa T. Bantug
Claire F. Snyder
PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3240-0

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2016 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine