Literature DB >> 20065187

Communicating the results of randomized clinical trials: do patients understand multidimensional patient-reported outcomes?

Angus G K McNair1, Sara T Brookes, Christopher R Davis, Miltiadis Argyropoulos, Jane M Blazeby.   

Abstract

PURPOSE Evidence suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from randomized trials in oncology may not influence clinical decision making and patient choice. Reasons for this are currently unclear and little is known about patients' interpretation of PROs. This study assessed patients' understanding of multidimensional PROs in a graphical format. PATIENTS AND METHODS Semistructured interviews in which patients interpreted a series of graphs depicting simple, then multiple different hypothetical PROs associated with two treatments with identical chances of survival were audio recorded. The interviewer and a blinded observer (listening to audio recordings) scored patients' understanding of the graphs. Logistic regression examined the associations between patient understanding of the graphs and clinical and sociodemographic details. Results One hundred thirty-two patients with esophageal and gastric cancer were interviewed and 115 understood the first two graphs depicting different PROs of two treatments (87%; 95% CI,81 to 93). Simultaneous interpretation of adverse and beneficial treatment effects was achieved by 74 (66%; 95% CI, 57 to 75). Graphs showing complex, longitudinal data were correctly interpreted by 97 (73%; 95% CI, 66 to 81) and 108 (81%; 95% CI, 75 to 88), respectively. Univariable analyses demonstrated associations between patient understanding and patient age, educational level, and cancer site (P < or = .02 for all); however, in a multivariable model each of these associations was attenuated. CONCLUSION Most patients understand graphical multidimensional PROs, although a smaller majority were able to interpret more complex, or simultaneous, presentations. Additional work is needed to define methods for communicating clinical and PRO data from trials to allow patients to make informed treatment choices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20065187     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.9111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  15 in total

Review 1.  [The benefits of using patient-reported outcomes in cancer treatment: an overview].

Authors:  Lisa M Wintner; Johannes M Giesinger; Georg Kemmler; Monika Sztankay; Anne Oberguggenberger; Eva-Maria Gamper; Barbara Sperner-Unterweger; Bernhard Holzner
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 1.704

2.  Picture This: Presenting Longitudinal Patient-Reported Outcome Research Study Results to Patients.

Authors:  Elliott Tolbert; Michael Brundage; Elissa Bantug; Amanda L Blackford; Katherine Smith; Claire Snyder
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation.

Authors:  Michael D Brundage; Katherine C Smith; Emily A Little; Elissa T Bantug; Claire F Snyder
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  A prospective study of patient reported outcomes in pancreatic and peri-ampullary malignancy.

Authors:  J R E Rees; R C Macefield; N S Blencowe; D Alderson; M D Finch-Jones; J M Blazeby
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Integrating health-related quality of life findings from randomized clinical trials into practice: an international study of oncologists' perspectives.

Authors:  Julie Rouette; Jane Blazeby; Madeleine King; Melanie Calvert; Yingwei Peng; Ralph M Meyer; Jolie Ringash; Melanie Walker; Michael D Brundage
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-11-29       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  'Trial Exegesis': Methods for Synthesizing Clinical and Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) Data in Trials to Inform Clinical Practice. A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Angus G K McNair; Rhiannon C Macefield; Natalie S Blencowe; Sara T Brookes; Jane M Blazeby
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores.

Authors:  W Kuijpers; J M Giesinger; A Zabernigg; T Young; E Friend; I M Tomaszewska; N K Aaronson; B Holzner
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  From statistics to clinics: the visual feedback of PROMIS® CATs.

Authors:  Maud M van Muilekom; Michiel A J Luijten; Hedy A van Oers; Caroline B Terwee; Raphaële R L van Litsenburg; Leo D Roorda; Martha A Grootenhuis; Lotte Haverman
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2021-07-10

9.  Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy.

Authors:  N S Blencowe; S Strong; A G K McNair; N Howes; J Elliot; K N Avery; J M Blazeby
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 10.  Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers.

Authors:  Lyndal J Trevena; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Adrian Edwards; Wolfgang Gaissmaier; Mirta Galesic; Paul K J Han; John King; Margaret L Lawson; Suzanne K Linder; Isaac Lipkus; Elissa Ozanne; Ellen Peters; Danielle Timmermans; Steven Woloshin
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.