Patricia A Ganz1. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research, UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California 90095-6900, USA. pganz@ucla.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the last quarter of the 20th century, it became feasible to measure and take into account the patient's subjective preferences for health states and various outcomes. This has become increasingly relevant in the treatment of cancer, where patients are confronted with a life-threatening illness and may have varied treatment choices and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To provide a framework for examining the outcomes that matter to patients from a clinician-researcher perspective. Considerations include the heterogeneity of the cancer patient population, the influence of the setting of care on patient outcomes, the range of outcomes that are often considered by patients and researchers, and possible study designs that should be considered to measure outcomes that are important to patients. The outcomes that matter to patients can broadly be classified into disease-focused and patient-focused outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There are many challenges in the measurement of patient-focused outcomes, including consensus on what are the most important outcomes and the methods for their measurement. In addition, it is often difficult to integrate disease-focused and patient-focused outcomes in the same setting, particularly for use in clinical decision making. We need to develop some key strategies to enhance patient outcomes including (1) emphasis on evidence-based treatments whenever possible, as the best way of improving disease-focused outcomes; (2) the inclusion of patient preferences when different treatment alternatives provide equivalent disease-focused outcomes; and (3) the provision of adequate time for communication about disease-focused and patient-focused outcomes, with emphasis on the training of clinicians to facilitate these discussions.
BACKGROUND: During the last quarter of the 20th century, it became feasible to measure and take into account the patient's subjective preferences for health states and various outcomes. This has become increasingly relevant in the treatment of cancer, where patients are confronted with a life-threatening illness and may have varied treatment choices and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To provide a framework for examining the outcomes that matter to patients from a clinician-researcher perspective. Considerations include the heterogeneity of the cancerpatient population, the influence of the setting of care on patient outcomes, the range of outcomes that are often considered by patients and researchers, and possible study designs that should be considered to measure outcomes that are important to patients. The outcomes that matter to patients can broadly be classified into disease-focused and patient-focused outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There are many challenges in the measurement of patient-focused outcomes, including consensus on what are the most important outcomes and the methods for their measurement. In addition, it is often difficult to integrate disease-focused and patient-focused outcomes in the same setting, particularly for use in clinical decision making. We need to develop some key strategies to enhance patient outcomes including (1) emphasis on evidence-based treatments whenever possible, as the best way of improving disease-focused outcomes; (2) the inclusion of patient preferences when different treatment alternatives provide equivalent disease-focused outcomes; and (3) the provision of adequate time for communication about disease-focused and patient-focused outcomes, with emphasis on the training of clinicians to facilitate these discussions.
Authors: Paula M Lantz; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Kendra Schwartz; Lihua Liu; Indu Lakhani; Barbara Salem; Steven J Katz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Kirstie L Haywood; Andrew M Garratt; Sandra Carrivick; Joanne Mangnall; Suzanne M Skevington Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-03-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Myung Kyung Lee; Byung Ho Son; Sook Yeon Hwang; Wonshik Han; Jung-Hyun Yang; Seeyoun Lee; Young Ho Yun Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-02-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Nasim A Khan; Horace J Spencer; Esam Abda; Amita Aggarwal; Rieke Alten; Codrina Ancuta; Daina Andersone; Martin Bergman; Jurgen Craig-Muller; Jacqueline Detert; Lia Georgescu; Laure Gossec; Hisham Hamoud; Johannes W G Jacobs; Ieda Maria Magalhaes Laurindo; Maria Majdan; Antonio Naranjo; Sapan Pandya; Christof Pohl; Georg Schett; Zahraa I Selim; Sergio Toloza; Hisahi Yamanaka; Tuulikki Sokka Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Young Kyung Do; William R Carpenter; Pamela Spain; Jack A Clark; Robert J Hamilton; Joseph A Galanko; Anne Jackman; James A Talcott; Paul A Godley Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jennifer L Malin; Clifford Ko; John Z Ayanian; David Harrington; David R Nerenz; Katherine L Kahn; Julie Ganther-Urmie; Paul J Catalano; Alan M Zaslavsky; Robert B Wallace; Edward Guadagnoli; Neeraj K Arora; Maryse D Roudier; Patricia A Ganz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-02-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Dong Young Noh; Seok Jin Nam; Se Hyun Ahn; Byeong Woo Park; Eun Sook Lee; Myung Kyung Lee; Soo Hyun Kim; Yoo Min Kim; Sang Min Park; Young Ho Yun Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-12-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Bruce Rapkin; Elisa Weiss; Rosy Chhabra; Laura Ryniker; Shilpa Patel; Jason Carness; Roberto Adsuar; Wendy Kahalas; Carol Delemarter; Ira Feldman; Judy Delorenzo; Ellen Tanner Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2008-03-10 Impact factor: 3.186