Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection

Identifying thresholds for clinically meaningful change among clients of drug and alcohol services using the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile

AIMS

The Austraian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief clinical outcomes tool used widely in the Australian alcohol and other drugs treatment sector to monitor clients' substance use, health, wellbeing and clinical risk factors. It has demonstrated reliability and validity, and has recommended clinical cut-offs for assessing single-occasion client-rated health scores. This study determined clinically meaningful change thresholds for ATOP substance use and health and wellbeing variables for use by clinicians in monitoring client progress, and for quality improvement and service evaluation.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A framework for assessing clinically meaningful changes scores was developed by (1) calculating statistically reliable change thresholds using data-driven techniques with a reference sample of clinical ATOP data and (2) conducting a multi-disciplinary subject matter expert group to review the utility and validity of data-derived clinically meaningful change. The study was conducted within Outpatient Alcohol and Other Drug treatment services in New South Wales, Australia. The reference sample comprised 6100 ATOPs from clients at entry to public outpatient Alcohol and Other Drug treatment services; the subject matter expert group comprised 29 key stakeholders from the specialist alcohol and other drug treatment sector.

MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS

We used the Reliable Change Index method to calculate clinically meaningful change thresholds for ATOP variables. For substance use variables, a change of 30% in days of use in the last 28 (minimum 4 days) was the threshold for clinically meaningful change for substance use; for health and wellbeing variables, a change of 2 or more points in psychological health, physical health or quality of life scores (measured on 0-10 scales) was the minimum clinically meaningful change.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically meaningful change thresholds have been proposed for Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile substance use and health and wellbeing items, based on statistical reliability and subject matter expert assessment. These will be used in the development of an outcomes metric for assessing change and assigning meaning in aggregated data for evaluation of services.

Relationship Between Asthma Control Status and Health-Related Quality of Life in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study

INTRODUCTION

There is limited information regarding multidimensional relationships between asthma control and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work productivity, and asthma symptom burden in Japan. Furthermore, systematic qualitative investigations about asthma burden have not been performed.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study included Japanese patients (≥ 20 years) with asthma adherent to inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists (ICS/LABA). The primary endpoint was impact of asthma on HRQoL, measured using the Asthma Health Questionnaire-33 (AHQ-33). Secondary endpoints were cough burden (Japanese-adapted Leicester Cough Questionnaire [J-LCQ]) and impact of asthma on work/activities (asthma-specific Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire [WPAI:Asthma]). Quantitative data were assessed for the overall population and for well-controlled (WC) and not well-controlled (NWC) asthma subgroups. Qualitative verbal interviews further assessed the impact of NWC asthma on patients' HRQoL; emergent themes were extracted using thematic analyses.

RESULTS

Of 454 patients, 45.2% (n = 205) had NWC asthma. Patients with NWC asthma had significantly worse asthma- and cough-related HRQoL across all AHQ-33 and J-LCQ domains and significantly greater work and activity impairment versus patients with WC asthma, across all assessed WPAI:Asthma domains. AHQ-33 total score was highly correlated with J-LCQ total and domain scores (r = - 0.8132 to r = - 0.7407). Nine themes emerged from qualitative interviews and confirmed that patients with NWC asthma had considerable HRQoL impairment due to asthma symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with NWC asthma had higher symptom burden and worse HRQoL than patients with WC asthma, despite ICS/LABA adherence. Cough burden correlated with HRQoL, suggesting cough may be one of the key markers to inform treatment strategy for patients with asthma.

Phenotyping Self-Reported Health Profiles in Octogenarians and Nonagenarians After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Latent Profile Analysis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about self-reported health in octogenarians (≥80 years) and nonagenarians (≥90 years) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including characteristics of different health outcomes. This study aimed to phenotype latent health profiles of self-reported health in older adults 2 months post-PCI.

METHODS

A prospective, multicentre, real-world study (CONCARDPCI) of 270 octogenarians and nonagenarians was performed with five validated and standardised measures of self-reported health at 2 months post-PCI. Latent profile analysis was used to identify health profiles, and multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to investigate the associations between patient characteristics and health profiles.

RESULTS

Three latent health profiles were identified: The Poor health profile included 29%, the Moderate health profile included 39%, and the Good health profile included 32% of the participants. Older adults who were frail (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.17-5.33), had a low exercise level (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39-0.95), and low alcohol intake (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.95) were more likely to belong to the Poor health profile relative to the Good health profile. Furthermore, older age (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.37) and lower exercise level (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.97) were associated with belonging to the Moderate health profile relative to the Good health profile.

CONCLUSION

Two months after PCI, most participants displayed having Moderate to Good health profiles. Those with a Poor health profile were more likely to be frail and less active. These findings highlight that follow-up care has to be patient-centred and tailored to improve the health status of older adults.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Orthopaedic Trauma

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements are validated tools developed to quantify self-reported aspects of capability, mindset, and circumstances in a standardized fashion. While PRO measurements have primarily been used in the research realm, a growing body of work now underscores substantial opportunities in applying the data generated by these tools to advance patient-centered musculoskeletal care. Specifically, the insights into a patient's health status derived from these measures can augment the standard biomedical approach to the management of patients with orthopaedic trauma. For instance, PRO measures have demonstrated the high prevalence of psychological distress and social concerns within trauma populations and shown that mindsets and circumstances account for a substantial amount of the variation in levels of symptom intensity and capability in these patients. Such findings support the need for a more integrated, biopsychosocial, and multidisciplinary team-based approach to orthopaedic trauma care that include both technical and nontechnical skillsets. In this chapter, we explore the range of available fixed-scale and computer adaptive PRO measures that can quantify aspects of capability, mindsets, and circumstances of the patient with orthopaedic trauma during their experience of injury, recovery, and rehabilitation. Furthermore, we define human, technical, and system-level challenges within the often complex, dynamic, and clinically intense trauma setting. Finally, we highlight potential opportunities through successfully implementing PRO measurements for clinical decision support, shared decision making, predicting health outcomes, and developing advanced care pathways for patients and populations with orthopaedic trauma.

End-of-Life Care Education as Blended Learning Approach for General Practitioners: a Scoping Review

General practitioners (GPs) are critical in providing primary palliative care in the community. Apprehensions about managing a dying person at home, difficulties in goals of care discussion, limited resources and lack of palliative care education often hinder end-of-life care provision in the community. This review focused on the end-of-life care training programs accessed by GPs and sought to understand if the training programs' content and mode of delivery aligned with their preferred needs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched to identify articles published in English between 01 January 1990 and 30 September 2022. Additionally, searches were conducted using SCOPUS, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane database using free texts. The reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full text to identify eligible studies and extracted textual data to analyse and generate themes. Out of 5532 citations initially accessed, 17 studies were included in the review. Six themes were generated: knowledge translation, skill development, a change in attitude, self-efficacy, satisfaction, and patient outcomes. The GPs' end-of-life care knowledge, skills, attitude, self-efficacy, and patient outcomes were better when their training had a combination of small-group interactive workshops, trigger case-based reflective learning, mentor-facilitated experiential learning, web-based modules, and peer learning. The synthesis of review findings supports blended learning as a training approach for general the practitioners' end-of-life care education as it facilitates learning and patient outcomes.

Fixing the Leaky Pipe: How to Improve the Uptake of Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Prognostic and Predictive Models in Cancer Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

This discussion paper outlines challenges and proposes solutions for successfully implementing prediction models that incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer practice.

METHODS

We organized a full-day multidisciplinary meeting of people with expertise in cancer care delivery, PRO collection, PRO use in prediction modeling, computing, implementation, and decision science. The discussions presented here focused on identifying challenges to the development, implementation and use of prediction models incorporating PROs, and suggesting possible solutions.

RESULTS

Specific challenges and solutions were identified across three broad areas. (1) Understanding decision making and implementation: necessitating multidisciplinary collaboration in the early stages and throughout; early stakeholder engagement to define the decision problem and ensure acceptability of PROs in prediction; understanding patient/clinician interpretation of PRO predictions and uncertainty to optimize prediction impact; striving for model integration into existing electronic health records; and early regulatory alignment. (2) Recognizing the limitations to PRO collection and their impact on prediction: incorporating validated, clinically important PROs to maximize model generalizability and clinical engagement; and minimizing missing PRO data (resulting from both structural digital exclusion and time-varying factors) to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities. (3) Statistical and modeling challenges: incorporating statistical methods to address missing data; ensuring predictive modeling recognizes complex causal relationships; and considering temporal and geographic recalibration so that model predictions reflect the relevant population.

CONCLUSION

Developing and implementing PRO-based prediction models in cancer care requires extensive multidisciplinary working from the earliest stages, recognition of implementation challenges because of PRO collection and model presentation, and robust statistical methods to manage missing data, causality, and calibration. Prediction models incorporating PROs should be viewed as complex interventions, with their development and impact assessment carried out to reflect this.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement and Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Hand Surgeons

Patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) tools are used to evaluate health status and response to treatment and have been integral in the effort to improve the quality of care provided. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) have garnered additional attention since becoming a priority of the National Institutes of Health in the early part of this century, and their use in both clinical practice and research has subsequently increased. In the upper extremity, a variety of PRO instruments exist that can assist physicians in their ability to track and/or prognosticate outcomes, make comparisons between treatments as well as strengthen research methodologies, and help determine the value of care. A more complete interpretation of the clinical significance of patient-reported outcome measurements is informed by parameters such as minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit and patient acceptable symptom state.

System-wide integration of patient reported outcome measure collection through an electronic medical record system: A state-wide retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In spine neurosurgery practice, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are tools used to convey information about a patient's health experience and are an integral component of a clinician's decision-making process as they help guide treatment strategies to improve outcomes and minimize pain. Currently, there is limited research showing effective integration strategies of PROMs into electronic medical records. This study aims to provide a framework for other healthcare systems by outlining the process from start to finish in seven Hartford Healthcare Neurosurgery outpatient spine clinics throughout the state of Connecticut.

METHODS

On March 1, 2021, a pilot implementation program began in one clinic and on July 1, 2021, all outpatient clinics were implementing the revised clinical workflow that included the electronic collection of PROMs within the electronic health record (EHR). A retrospective chart analysis studied all adult (18+) new patient visits in seven outpatient clinics by comparing the rates of PROMs collection in Half 1 (March 1, 2021-August 31, 2022) and in Half 2 (September 1, 2022-February 28, 2022) across all sites. Additionally, patient characteristics were studied to identify any variables that may lead to higher rates of collection.

RESULTS

During the study period, 3528 new patient visits were analyzed. There was a significant change in rates of PROMs collection across all departments between H1 and H2 (p < 0.05). Additional significant predictors for PROMs collection were the sex and ethnicity of the patient as well as the provider type for the visit (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study proved that implementing the electronic collection of PROMs into an already existing clinical workflow reduces previously identified collection barriers and enables PROMs collection rates that meet or exceed current benchmarks. Our results provide a successful step-by-step framework for other spine neurosurgery clinics to implement a similar approach.

Usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome system linked to an electronic chemotherapy prescribing and patient management system for patients with cancer

Background

People affected by cancer experience a wide range of symptoms which have a major impact on their functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). One way to measure the impact of cancer symptoms is through the use of patient-reported outcomes.

Methods

An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) application (ChemoPRO®) was designed to be used by cancer patients to report their symptoms and communicate with their clinical team. Usability testing sessions were conducted with people with lived experience of cancer to understand how real users interact with the ChemoPRO® system. One-to-one testing sessions were conducted to assess use of the system and identify areas for further refinement. User satisfaction was assessed using a brief satisfaction questionnaire previously used by Aiyegbusi et al. (date).

Results

Ten people with lived experience of cancer took part in the usability study. Symptoms and HRQoL measures, including the Euroqol EQ5D5L and the PRO-CTCAE™ were included in the ePRO system.

Participants

had a mean age of 62.3 years. Three critical errors and 21 non-critical errors were reported. All participants were enthusiastic about the app. Participants liked the simplicity and responsiveness of the patient-facing app and highlighted the potential for communicating with their clinical team. The overall usability and satisfaction score was 4.5 (sd = 0.09).

Conclusion

This usability study suggests that people with lived experience of cancer found the ChemoPRO® app acceptable and easy to use. One of the key features of this particular ePRO system that should be developed further is system functionality to facilitate communication between patients and clinicians. Future testing should include testing in a clinical setting and testing with people from ethnic minorities.

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field.

Analysis of patient-reported outcomes in the approval of novel oncology drugs in the United States, 2017-2022

Background

With the growing notion of patient-focused drug development, the quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of cancer patients are gaining considerable attention. Several drug regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are calling attention to PROs. This review aims to comprehensively characterise the application of PROs and regulatory considerations for PROs in the FDA-approved novel oncology drugs.

Methods

The FDA review documents and labels for novel oncology drugs approved from July 2017 to July 2022 were retrieved. We collected and analysed drug approval information, types of endpoints for PROs, PRO measures, designs of trials including PROs, and regulatory comments on PRO-related contents.

Findings

Results demonstrated that PROs were used more commonly for solid tumours than hematologic malignancies, which might be correlated with the disease characteristics. We further categorised and analysed existing PRO measures, providing insight for tool selection in future oncology trial design. Our findings also indicated that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug approvals. The major deficiencies related to PROs commented on by FDA reviewers were analysed, followed by recommendations for improvements.

Interpretation

This review demonstrates that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug marketing review, and how they can be used to support the approval of new oncology drugs is still in the exploratory stage. This current situation is not only related to the deficiencies in the design and implementation of PRO-related contents in oncology trials, but more importantly, it is a reminder that we should pay more attention to patient experience in the development of oncology drugs.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

The Inconsistent Assessment of Quality of Life in Patients Treated for Head and Neck Cancer with Anti-EGFR Inhibitors: A Systematic Scoping Review

In patients receiving treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC), there is a correlation between quality of life (QoL) scores and treatment outcomes. Higher QoL scores have been associated with improved survival. Despite this, the assessment of QoL in clinical trials varies considerably. Three databases (Scopus, PubMed, and Cinahl) were queried for articles published in English between 2006 and 2022. Two reviewers (SRS and ANT) performed study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The authors identified 21 articles that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 5961 patients were evaluated. QoL was reported as average scores for specific variables across five different surveys in 12 included articles. Supplemental QoL data were available in 10 included studies. Critical appraisal of studies indicated a high risk of bias due to the inclusion of trials. There is no standard method for reporting QoL data in clinical trials for HNC patients undergoing treatment with anti-EGFR inhibitors. Future clinical trials should standardize their method for assessing and reporting quality-of-life data to increase patient-centered care and refine treatment choices to optimize survival.

Needs-based triggers for timely referral to palliative care for older adults severely affected by noncancer conditions: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Older people with noncancer conditions are less likely to be referred to palliative care services due to the inherent uncertain disease trajectory and a lack of standardised referral criteria. For older adults with noncancer conditions where prognostic estimation is unpredictable, needs-based criteria are likely more suitable. Eligibility criteria for participation in clinical trials on palliative care could inform a needs-based criteria. This review aimed to identify and synthesise eligibility criteria for trials in palliative care to construct a needs-based set of triggers for timely referral to palliative care for older adults severely affected by noncancer conditions.

METHODS

A systematic narrative review of published trials of palliative care service level interventions for older adults with noncancer conditions. Electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. were searched from inception to June 2022. We included all types of randomised controlled trials. We selected trials that reported eligibility criteria for palliative care involvement for older adults with noncancer conditions, where > 50% of the population was aged ≥ 65 years. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis provided descriptions of the patterns and appraised the applicability of included trial eligibility criteria to identify patients likely to benefit from receiving palliative care.

RESULTS

27 randomised controlled trials met eligibility out of 9,584 papers. We identified six major domains of trial eligibility criteria in three categories, needs-based, time-based and medical history-based criteria. Needs-based criteria were composed of symptoms, functional status, and quality of life criteria. The major trial eligibility criteria were diagnostic criteria (n = 26, 96%), followed by medical history-based criteria (n = 15, 56%), and physical and psychological symptom criteria (n = 14, 52%).

CONCLUSION

For older adults severely affected by noncancer conditions, decisions about providing palliative care should be based on the present needs related to symptoms, functional status, and quality of life. Further research is needed to examine how the needs-based triggers can be operationalized as referral criteria in clinical settings and develop international consensus on referral criteria for older adults with noncancer conditions.

Embedding patient-reported outcomes at the heart of artificial intelligence health-care technologies

Integration of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in artificial intelligence (AI) studies is a critical part of the humanisation of AI for health. It allows AI technologies to incorporate patients' own views of their symptoms and predict outcomes, reflecting a more holistic picture of health and wellbeing and ultimately helping patients and clinicians to make the best health-care decisions together. By positioning patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as a model input or output we propose a framework to embed PROMs within the function and evaluation of AI health care. However, the integration of PROs in AI systems presents several challenges. These challenges include (1) fragmentation of PRO data collection; (2) validation of AI systems trained and validated against clinician performance, rather than outcome data; (3) scarcity of large-scale PRO datasets; (4) inadequate selection of PROMs for the target population and inadequate infrastructure for collecting PROs; and (5) clinicians might not recognise the value of PROs and therefore not prioritise their adoption; and (6) studies involving PRO or AI frequently present suboptimal design. Notwithstanding these challenges, we propose considerations for the inclusion of PROs in AI health-care technologies to avoid promoting survival at the expense of wellbeing.