T Luckett1, M T King. 1. Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia. t.luckett@unsw.edu.au
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this article is to give practical advice to researchers wishing to choose measures of quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for cancer clinical research. METHOD: Readers are guided through the process of selecting a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) by means of six principles, illustrated with examples. RESULTS: PROM selection should always be undertaken with consideration of specific objectives, samples, treatments and available resources. Guiding principles include: (1) always consider PROMs early in the design process within the context of other methodological decisions; (2) choose a primary PROM that is as proximal to the cancer and/or its treatment as will add to knowledge and inform practice; (3) identify candidate PROMs primarily on the grounds of scaling and content; (4) appraise the reliability, validity and 'track records' of candidate PROMs in studies similar to that planned; (5) look ahead to practical concerns; and (6) take a minimalist approach to ad hoc items. CONCLUSION: The principles and algorithms presented in this article will assist cancer clinical researchers who lack specialist expertise in patient-reported outcome measurement to make appropriate choices when selecting PROMs for their next study. Crown
AIM: The purpose of this article is to give practical advice to researchers wishing to choose measures of quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for cancer clinical research. METHOD: Readers are guided through the process of selecting a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) by means of six principles, illustrated with examples. RESULTS: PROM selection should always be undertaken with consideration of specific objectives, samples, treatments and available resources. Guiding principles include: (1) always consider PROMs early in the design process within the context of other methodological decisions; (2) choose a primary PROM that is as proximal to the cancer and/or its treatment as will add to knowledge and inform practice; (3) identify candidate PROMs primarily on the grounds of scaling and content; (4) appraise the reliability, validity and 'track records' of candidate PROMs in studies similar to that planned; (5) look ahead to practical concerns; and (6) take a minimalist approach to ad hoc items. CONCLUSION: The principles and algorithms presented in this article will assist cancer clinical researchers who lack specialist expertise in patient-reported outcome measurement to make appropriate choices when selecting PROMs for their next study. Crown
Authors: Karen W Gripp; Lisa Schill; Lisa Schoyer; Beth Stronach; Anton M Bennett; Susan Blaser; Amanda Brown; Rebecca Burdine; Emma Burkitt-Wright; Pau Castel; Sandra Darilek; Alwyn Dias; Tuesdi Dyer; Michelle Ellis; Gregg Erickson; Bruce D Gelb; Tamar Green; Andrea Gross; Alan Ho; James Lloyd Holder; Shin-Ichi Inoue; Angie C Jelin; Annie Kennedy; Richard Klein; Maria I Kontaridis; Pilar Magoulas; Darryl B McConnell; Frank McCormick; Benjamin G Neel; Carlos E Prada; Katherine A Rauen; Amy Roberts; Pablo Rodriguez-Viciana; Neal Rosen; Gavin Rumbaugh; Anna Sablina; Maja Solman; Marco Tartaglia; Angelica Thomas; William C Timmer; Kartik Venkatachalam; Karin S Walsh; Pamela L Wolters; Jae-Sung Yi; Martin Zenker; Nancy Ratner Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Pamela L Wolters; Staci Martin; Vanessa L Merker; Kathy L Gardner; Cynthia M Hingtgen; James H Tonsgard; Elizabeth K Schorry; Andrea Baldwin Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Madeleine T King; Meera Agar; David C Currow; Janet Hardy; Belinda Fazekas; Nikki McCaffrey Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 3.603