Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 3/2016

Open Access 01-03-2016 | Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only)

Patients’ and health professionals’ understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores

Authors: W. Kuijpers, J. M. Giesinger, A. Zabernigg, T. Young, E. Friend, I. M. Tomaszewska, N. K. Aaronson, B. Holzner

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate patients’ and health professionals’ understanding of and preferences for different graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores.

Methods

We recruited cancer patients (any treatment and diagnosis) in four European countries and health professionals in the Netherlands. Using a questionnaire, we assessed objective and self-rated understanding of QLQ-C30 scores and preferences for five presentation styles (bar and line charts, with or without color coding, and a heat map).

Results

In total, 548 patients and 227 health professionals participated. Eighty-three percent of patients and 85 % of professionals self-rated the graphs as very or quite easy to understand; this did not differ between graphical presentation styles. The mean percentage of correct answers to questions objectively assessing understanding was 59 % in patients, 78 % in medical specialists, and 74 % in other health professionals. Objective understanding did not differ between graphical formats in patients. For non-colored charts, 49.8 % of patients did not have a preference. Colored bar charts (39 %) were preferred over heat maps (20 %) and colored line charts (12 %). Medical specialists preferred heat maps (46 %) followed by non-colored bar charts (19 %), whereas these charts were equally valued by other health professionals (both 32 %).

Conclusion

The substantial discrepancy between participants’ high self-rated and relatively low objective understanding of graphical presentation of PRO results highlights the need to provide sufficient guidance when presenting such results. It may be appropriate to adapt the presentation of PRO results to individual preferences. This could be facilitated when PROs are administered and presented to patients and health professionals electronically.
Literature
1.
Greenhalgh, J. (2009). The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work, and why? Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 115–123.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Kotronoulas, G., Kearney, N., Maguire, R., Harrow, A., Di Domenico, D., Croy, S., & MacGillivray, S. (2014). What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, JCO, 2013(2053), 5948.
3.
Valderas, J., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C., Halyard, M., et al. (2008). The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 17(2), 179–193.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Klinkhammer-Schalke, M., Koller, M., Steinger, B., Ehret, C., Ernst, B., Wyatt, J. C., et al. (2012). Direct improvement of quality of life using a tailored quality of life diagnosis and therapy pathway: Randomised trial in 200 women with breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 106(5), 826–838.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
5.
Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Bennett, A. V., Jensen, R. E., & Basch, E. (2012). Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62(5), 336–347.
7.
8.
Brundage, M., Feldman-Stewart, D., Leis, A., Bezjak, A., Degner, L., Velji, K., et al. (2005). Communicating quality of life information to cancer patients: A study of six presentation formats. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(28), 6949–6956.CrossRefPubMed
9.
McNair, A. G., Brookes, S. T., Davis, C. R., Argyropoulos, M., & Blazeby, J. M. (2010). Communicating the results of randomized clinical trials: Do patients understand multidimensional patient-reported outcomes? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(5), 738–743.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Brundage, M., Bass, B., Jolie, R., & Foley, K. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20(7), 979–985.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., Elliott, T. E., Greenhalgh, J., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research, 21(8), 1305–1314.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Abernethy, A. P., Zafar, S. Y., Uronis, H., Wheeler, J. L., Coan, A., Rowe, K., et al. (2010). Validation of the Patient Care Monitor (Version 2.0): A review of system assessment instrument for cancer patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 40(4), 545–558.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Erharter, A., Giesinger, J., Kemmler, G., Schauer-Maurer, G., Stockhammer, G., Muigg, A., et al. (2010). Implementation of computer-based quality-of-life monitoring in brain tumor outpatients in routine clinical practice. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 39(2), 219–229.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Snyder, C. F., Jensen, R., Courtin, S. O., Wu, A. W., Network, W., & Website for Outpatient QOL Assessment Research Network. (2009). PatientViewpoint: A website for patient-reported outcomes assessment. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 793–800.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
15.
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Davis, C., McNair, A., Brigic, A., Clarke, M., Brookes, S., Thomas, M., & Blazeby, J. (2010). Optimising methods for communicating survival data to patients undergoing cancer surgery. European Journal of Cancer, 46(18), 3192–3199.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Brundage, M. D., Smith, K. C., Little, E. A., Bantug, E. T., & Snyder, C. F. (2015). Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 1–16.
19.
Chapman, K., Abraham, C., Jenkins, V., & Fallowfield, L. (2003). Lay understanding of terms used in cancer consultations. Psycho-Oncology, 12(6), 557–566.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Pieterse, A. H., Jager, N. A., Smets, E., & Henselmans, I. (2013). Lay understanding of common medical terminology in oncology. Psycho-Oncology, 22(5), 1186–1191.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Jaspers, M. W., Steen, T., van Den Bos, C., & Geenen, M. (2004). The think aloud method: A guide to user interface design. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 73(11), 781–795.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patients’ and health professionals’ understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores
Authors
W. Kuijpers
J. M. Giesinger
A. Zabernigg
T. Young
E. Friend
I. M. Tomaszewska
N. K. Aaronson
B. Holzner
Publication date
01-03-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1107-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Quality of Life Research 3/2016 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Stability of the 13-item sense of coherence (SOC) scale: a longitudinal prospective study in women treated for breast cancer

Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only)

Symptom clusters in women with breast cancer: an analysis of data from social media and a research study

OriginalPaper

Impact of Alzheimer’s disease on the family caregiver’s long-term quality of life: results from an ALSOVA follow-up study

Original Paper

The effectiveness of a preventive health program and vitamin D status in improving health-related quality of life of older Canadians

OriginalPaper

Ambulatory and diary methods can facilitate the measurement of patient-reported outcomes

OriginalPaper

Health-related needs of people with multiple chronic diseases: differences and underlying factors