Literature DB >> 12797712

Cancer patients' preferences for communicating clinical trial quality of life information: a qualitative study.

M Brundage1, A Leis, A Bezjak, D Feldman-Stewart, L Degner, K Velji, L Zetes-Zanatta, D Tu, P Ritvo, J Pater.   

Abstract

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a prevalent outcome measure in clinical trials, but it is not known how best to communicate HRQL results to new patients with cancer. The purpose was to explore cancer patients' attitudes toward, and preferences for, 10 visual and written formats for communicating HRQL information. Using standardized qualitative methods, six focus groups were held (two groups in each of three cancer centres) with patients who had completed treatment for cancer at least 6 months earlier. Groups were stratified according to patients' education. To ensure consistency across centres, group moderators used the same detailed guide, training video, and props. Three investigators independently coded the resulting transcripts. Participants also rated each of the 10 presentation formats as to their perceived usefulness. Fourteen men and 19 women with a variety of cancer diagnoses participated; 13 (39%) participated in the three lower-education groups and 20 (61%) in the three higher-education groups. We found that simple formats (simple graphs or written text) were generally preferred to more complex graphical information, regardless of educational level. The same format was rated favourably by the highest proportion of participants in both the high (85%) and low (85%) education level groups. Individual patients, however, varied as to which visual format they most preferred. Patients did not wish to receive HRQL information out of context or without explanation. We conclude that cancer patients desire HRQL information, but vary in their preferences for its communication. Simple formats are generally preferred.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12797712     DOI: 10.1023/a:1023404731041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  33 in total

1.  Practice and policy of measuring quality of life and health economics in cancer clinical trials: a survey among co-operative trial groups.

Authors:  G Kiebert; S Wait; J Bernhard; A Bezjak; D Cella; R Day; J Houghton; C Moinpour; C Scott; R Stephens
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Doctor-patient communication in a cancer ward.

Authors:  S Chaitchik; S Kreitler; S Shaked; I Schwartz; R Rosin
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Validity of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire in the palliative care setting: a multi-centre Canadian study demonstrating the importance of the existential domain.

Authors:  S R Cohen; B M Mount; E Bruera; M Provost; J Rowe; K Tong
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.762

4.  Quality of life instruments for cancer patients: "Babel's Tower revisited".

Authors:  J C de Haes; F C van Knippenberg
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 5.  Measuring quality of life: apparent benefits, potential concerns.

Authors:  J E Till
Journal:  Can J Oncol       Date:  1994-01

6.  Psychosocial implications of adjuvant chemotherapy. A two-year follow-up.

Authors:  B E Meyerowitz; I K Watkins; F C Sparks
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1983-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  Measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D H Feeny; D L Patrick
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Information and decision-making preferences of men with prostate cancer.

Authors:  B J Davison; L F Degner; T R Morgan
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 2.172

9.  Focus groups with cancer patients: toward a more comprehensive understanding of the cancer experience.

Authors:  F D Ashbury; L Lockyer; K McKerracher; H Findlay
Journal:  Cancer Prev Control       Date:  1997-08

10.  Cancer patients: their desire for information and participation in treatment decisions.

Authors:  H J Sutherland; H A Llewellyn-Thomas; G A Lockwood; D L Tritchler; J E Till
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 18.000

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Recommendations for enhancing clinical trials education: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Karen A Stepan; Amy P Gonzalez; Vivian S Dorsey; Debra K Frye; Nita D Pyle; Regina F Smith; Terry A Throckmorton; Louise A Villejo; Scott B Cantor
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 2.  Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations.

Authors:  Claire F Snyder; Neil K Aaronson; Ali K Choucair; Thomas E Elliott; Joanne Greenhalgh; Michele Y Halyard; Rachel Hess; Deborah M Miller; Bryce B Reeve; Maria Santana
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  A systematic review of information in decision aids.

Authors:  Deb Feldman-Stewart; Sarah Brennenstuhl; Kathryn McIssac; Joan Austoker; Agathe Charvet; Paul Hewitson; Karen R Sepucha; Tim Whelan
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?

Authors:  Joanne Greenhalgh
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Systematic review reveals limitations of studies evaluating health-related quality of life after potentially curative treatment for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Marc Jacobs; Rhiannon C Macefield; Jane M Blazeby; Ida J Korfage; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Ellen M Smets; Mirjam A G Sprangers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-10-20       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: a potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists.

Authors:  Derek Kyte; Jonathan Ives; Heather Draper; Thomas Keeley; Melanie Calvert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Management of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Alerts in Clinical Trials: A Cross Sectional Survey.

Authors:  Derek Kyte; Jonathan Ives; Heather Draper; Melanie Calvert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study qualitative protocol.

Authors:  Ameeta Retzer; Thomas Keeley; Khaled Ahmed; Jo Armes; Julia M Brown; Lynn Calman; Chris Copland; Fabio Efficace; Anna Gavin; Adam Glaser; Diana M Greenfield; Anne Lanceley; Rachel M Taylor; Galina Velikova; Michael Brundage; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Madeleine T King; Melanie Calvert; Derek Kyte
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards.

Authors:  Michael Brundage; Jane Blazeby; Dennis Revicki; Brenda Bass; Henrica de Vet; Helen Duffy; Fabio Efficace; Madeleine King; Cindy L K Lam; David Moher; Jane Scott; Jeff Sloan; Claire Snyder; Susan Yount; Melanie Calvert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol.

Authors:  Khaled Ahmed; Derek Kyte; Thomas Keeley; Fabio Efficace; Jo Armes; Julia M Brown; Lynn Calman; Chris Copland; Anna Gavin; Adam Glaser; Diana M Greenfield; Anne Lanceley; Rachel Taylor; Galina Velikova; Michael Brundage; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Madeleine T King; Melanie Calvert
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.