Performance Measures Based on How Adults With Cancer Feel and Function: Stakeholder Recommendations and Feasibility Testing in Six Cancer Centers

Developing feasible and acceptable strategies for integrating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in gender-affirming care: An implementation study

OBJECTIVE

Use CFIR guidance to create comprehensive, evidence-based, feasible, and acceptable gender-affirming care PROM implementation strategies.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

A 3-Phase participatory process was followed to design feasible and acceptable strategies for integrating PROMs in gender-affirming care. In Phase 1, barriers and enablers to PROM implementation for gender-affirming care were identified from a previous systematic review and our prior qualitative study. We used the CFIR-ERIC tool to match previously identified barriers and enablers with expert-endorsed implementation strategies. In Phase 2, implementation strategy outputs from CFIR-ERIC were organised according to cumulative percentage value. In Phase 3, gender-affirming care PROM implementation strategies underwent iterative refinement based on rounds of stakeholder feedback with seven patient and public partners and a gender-affirming healthcare professional.

RESULTS

The systematic review and qualitative study identified barriers and enablers to PROM implementation spanning all five CFIR domains, and 30 CFIR constructs. The top healthcare professional-relevant strategies to PROM implementation from the CFIR-ERIC output include: identifying and preparing implementation champions, collecting feedback on PROM implementation, and capturing and sharing local knowledge between clinics on implementation. Top patient-relevant strategies include: having educational material on PROMs, ensuring adaptability of PROMs, and collaborating with key local organisations who may be able to support patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study developed evidence-based, feasible, and acceptable strategies for integrating PROMs in gender-affirming care, representing evidence from a systematic review of 286 international articles, a qualitative study of 24 gender-affirming care patients and healthcare professionals, and iteration from 7 patient and public partners and a gender-affirming healthcare professional. The finalised strategies include patient- and healthcare professional-relevant strategies for implementing PROMs in gender-affirming care. Clinicians and researchers can select and tailor implementation strategies best applying to their gender-affirming care setting.

Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.

RESULTS

We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.

The potential impact of proxy reports for symptom experience and care quality and experience in advanced cancer

OBJECTIVES

As the US tests models of care for the seriously ill, patient perceptions of the quality of care are important. Proxies are often needed for this group. We sought to understand the potential impact of proxy reports for the assessment of care quality and experience in cancer.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis of a deidentified prospective study that included surveys of perceived care quality, including symptom management, from patients with advanced cancer receiving chemotherapy and their caregivers. Surveys were administered at diagnosis (time 1) and treatment (time 2), with top-box scoring used for analysis. Overall concordance was assessed using metrics including Gwet's AC1. The proportion of the highest scores by respondent type within 2 subgroups were examined: (1) symptom burden and (2) practice setting.

RESULTS

Data from 83 dyads were analyzed. Proxies and patients frequently reported the highest scores for quality (time 1: proxies: 77% and patients: 80%). At time 1, 14% of proxies and 10% of patients reported an unmet need for symptom palliation. Most patients reporting an unmet need gave the top score for quality (75%), but fewer proxies did so (45%). Proxy and patient reports were similar within practice settings. Concordance was at least moderate (nearly all outcomes >0.5 and some >0.8) by Gwet's AC1.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Findings of at least moderate concordance and similar experience outcomes within subgroups suggest the use of proxies may not change estimates substantially. However, consideration should be taken when evaluating symptom management, particularly if such evaluations inform assessment of provider performance.

Quality measurement for cardiovascular diseases and cancer in hospital value-based healthcare: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

This systematic literature review identifies hospital value-based healthcare quality measures, measurement practices, and tools, as well as potential strategies for improving cardiovascular diseases and cancer care.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and MEDLINE (OvidSP) databases. We included studies on quality measures in hospital value-based healthcare for cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, conducted a full-text review of potentially relevant articles, assessed the quality of included studies, and extracted data thematically. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and four validated tools were used for methodological quality assessment.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2860 publications. After screening the titles and abstracts, 60 articles were retrieved for full-text review. A total of 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. We found that standardized outcome sets with patient involvement were developed for some cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Despite the heterogeneity in outcome measures, there was consensus to include clinical outcomes on survival rate and disease control, disutility of care, and patient-reported outcome measures such as long-term quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Hospitals that developed value-based healthcare or are planning to do so can choose whether they prefer to implement the standardized outcomes step-by-step, collect additional measures, or develop their own set of measures. However, they need to ensure that their performance can be consistently compared to that of their peers and that they measure what prioritizes and maximizes value for their patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021229763 .

Stakeholder Perceptions of Key Aspects of High-Quality Cancer Care to Assess with Patient Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

We conducted a review to identify important symptoms reported by patients on questionnaires (e.g., pain) that can be used to compare cancer centers on how well they provide care. For example, cancer centers could be compared on the percentage of patients with controlled pain after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Standard review methods were used to identify studies through August 2020. Searches generated 1813 articles and 1779 were coded as not relevant. The remaining 34 studies showed that patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators identify psychosocial care (e.g., distress) and symptom management as critical parts of high-quality care. Patients and caregivers also perceive that maintaining physical function and daily activities are important. Clinicians and healthcare administrators perceive control of specific symptoms to be important (e.g., pain, poor sleep, diarrhea). Results were used to inform testing of symptom questionnaires to compare the quality of care provided by six cancer centers.

Abstract

Performance measurement is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting standardized measures of clinical performance that can be compared across practices to evaluate how well care was provided. We conducted a systematic review to identify stakeholder perceptions of key symptoms and health domains to test as patient-reported performance measures in oncology. Stakeholders included cancer patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators. Standard review methodology was used, consistent with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies through August 2020. Four coders independently reviewed entries and conflicts were resolved by a fifth coder. Efficacy and effectiveness studies, and studies focused exclusively on patient experiences of care (e.g., communication skills of providers) were excluded. Searches generated 1813 articles and 1779 were coded as not relevant, leaving 34 international articles for extraction. Patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators prioritize psychosocial care (e.g., distress) and symptom management for patient-reported performance measures. Patients and caregivers also perceive that maintaining physical function and daily activities are critical. Clinicians and administrators perceive control of specific symptoms to be critical (gastrointestinal symptoms, pain, poor sleep). Results were used to inform testing at six US cancer centers.

Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs) are well established in research for many health conditions, but barriers persist for implementing them in routine care. Implementation science (IS) offers a potential way forward, but its application has been limited for PROMs/PREMs.

Methods

We compare similarities and differences for widely used IS frameworks and their applicability for implementing PROMs/PREMs through case studies. Three case studies implemented PROMs: (1) pain clinics in Canada; (2) oncology clinics in Australia; and (3) pediatric/adult clinics for chronic conditions in the Netherlands. The fourth case study is planning PREMs implementation in Canadian primary care clinics. We compare case studies on barriers, enablers, implementation strategies, and evaluation.

Results

Case studies used IS frameworks to systematize barriers, to develop implementation strategies for clinics, and to evaluate implementation effectiveness. Across case studies, consistent PROM/PREM implementation barriers were technology, uncertainty about how or why to use PROMs/PREMs, and competing demands from established clinical workflows. Enabling factors in clinics were context specific. Implementation support strategies changed during pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation stages. Evaluation approaches were inconsistent across case studies, and thus, we present example evaluation metrics specific to PROMs/PREMs.

Conclusion

Multilevel IS frameworks are necessary for PROM/PREM implementation given the complexity. In cross-study comparisons, barriers to PROM/PREM implementation were consistent across patient populations and care settings, but enablers were context specific, suggesting the need for tailored implementation strategies based on clinic resources. Theoretically guided studies are needed to clarify how, why, and in what circumstances IS principles lead to successful PROM/PREM integration and sustainability.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to users.