Longitudinal validity and reliability of the Myeloma Patient Outcome Scale (MyPOS) was established using traditional, generalizability and Rasch psychometric methods

A survey of quality-of-life tools used in the routine care of patients with multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

New treatment options have significantly improved the life expectancy of myeloma patients such that their cause of death is increasingly likely to be from something other than myeloma. Furthermore, the adverse effects of short- or long-term treatments as well as the disease are impacting on quality of life (QoL) for longer periods of time. Understanding people's QoL and what is important to them, is part of providing holistic care. Although QoL data has been collected for many years in myeloma studies, they have not been used to inform patient outcomes. There is growing evidence that supports the assessment of 'fitness' and consideration of QoL as part of routine myeloma care. A national survey was carried out to discover which QoL tools are currently being used in the routine care of myeloma patients, by whom and at which time point.

METHODS

An online survey using SurveyMonkey was adopted for flexibility and accessibility. The link to the survey was circulated via Bloodwise, Myeloma UK and Cancer Research UK contact lists. Paper questionnaires were circulated at the UK Myeloma Forum.

RESULTS

Data about practices in 26 centres were collected. This included sites across England and Wales. Three out of 26 centres collect QoL data as part of standard care. QoL tools used include EORTC QLQ-My20/24, MyPOS, FACT-BMT and Quality of Life Index. Questionnaires were completed by patients before, during or after a clinic appointment. Clinical nurse specialists calculate the scores and create a care plan.

CONCLUSION

Despite growing evidence to support an holistic approach to management of myeloma patients, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that health-related QoL is being addressed in standard care. This is an area that needs further research.

A qualitative evidence synthesis of healthcare professionals' experiences and views of palliative care for patients with a haematological malignancy

INTRODUCTION

Patients with haematological malignancies may not be receiving appropriate referrals to palliative care and continuing to have treatments in the end stages of their disease. This systematic review of qualitative research aimed to synthesise healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views and experiences of palliative care for adult patients with a haematologic malignancy.

METHODS

A systematic search strategy was undertaken across eight databases. Thomas and Harden's approach to thematic analysis guided synthesis on the seventeen included studies. GRADE-GRADEQual guided assessment of confidence in the synthesised findings.

RESULTS

Three analytic themes were identified: (a) "Maybe we can pull another 'rabbit out of the hat'," represents doctors' therapeutic optimism, (b) "To tell or not to tell?" explores doctors' decision-making around introducing palliative care, and (c) "Hospice, home or hospital?" describes HCPs concerns about challenges faced by haematology patients at end of life in terms of transfusion support and risk of catastrophic bleeds.

CONCLUSION

Haematologists value the importance of integrated palliative care but prefer the term "supportive care." Early integration of supportive care alongside active curative treatment should be the model of choice in haematology settings in order to achieve the best outcomes and improved quality of life.

Challenges in the cultural adaptation of the German Myeloma Patient Outcome Scale (MyPOS): an outcome measure to support routine symptom assessment in myeloma care

BACKGROUND

Patients with multiple myeloma report more problems with quality of life (QoL) than other haematological malignancies over the course of their incurable illness. The patient-centred Myeloma Patient Outcome Scale (MyPOS) was developed to assess and monitor symptoms and supportive care factors in routine care. Our aim was to translate and culturally adapt the outcome measure to the German context, and to explore its face and content validity.

METHODS

Translation and cultural adaptation following established guidelines used an exploratory, sequential mixed method study design. Steps included: (1) forward translation to German; (2) backward translation to English; (3) expert review; (4) focus groups with the target population (patients, family members, healthcare professionals) to achieve conceptual equivalence; (5) cognitive interviews using Tourangeau's model with think-aloud technique to evaluate comprehension and acceptability; (6) final review. Results were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Cultural and linguistic differences were noted between the German and English original version. The focus groups (n = 11) and cognitive interviews (n = 9) both highlighted the need for adapting individual items and their answer options to the German healthcare context. Greater individuality regarding need for information with the right to not be informed was elaborated by patients. While the comprehensive nature of the tool was appreciated, item wording regarding satisfaction with healthcare was deemed not appropriate in the German context. Before implementation into routine care, patients' concerns about keeping their MyPOS data confidential need to be addressed as a barrier, whereas the MyPOS itself was perceived as a facilitator/prompt for a patient-centred discussion of QoL issues.

CONCLUSION

With adaptations to answer options and certain items, the German version of the MyPOS can help monitor symptoms and problems afflicting myeloma patients over the course of the disease trajectory. It can help promote a model of comprehensive supportive and patient-centred care for these patients.