PURPOSE: This trial assessed the ability to enhance health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) evaluation in trials and patient management using computer assistance with a handheld device, called a personal digital assistant. The study assessed ease of use and psychometric properties of this approach, comparing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) paper form with the electronic (eLCSS-QL). Objectives were to: (1) measure completion times; (2) evaluate acceptability by patients, nurses, and physicians; (3) determine the correlation of the eLCSS-QL with the paper version; and (4) determine the feasibility of using a shorter visual analogue scale (VAS) in the electronic version. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were entered at 12 COMET clinics. All had: (a) stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer, (b) Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 60, (c) no prior chemotherapy, and (d) received initial courses of docetaxel + platinum. Of the 148 patients enrolled, characteristics were: men, 57 %; median, KPS 80 %; and median age, 67 years. Of these, 131 patients completed the evaluation form. RESULTS: The eLCSS-QL had excellent acceptance by patients, nurses, and physicians. Patients required 2.2 min (mean) to complete the eLCSS-QL. Reliability coefficients using Cronbach's alpha were high for the paper (0.84) and electronic (0.88) versions. The correlation coefficient between forms was high (0.92). The length of the VAS on the handheld pc (53 mm versus 100 mm on the paper format) resulted in nearly identical scores. CONCLUSIONS: The high acceptance rate by patients and professionals, the rapid completion time, ease of use, and strong psychometric properties confirm that the electronic LCSS (eLCSS-QL) is practical for use in trials and patient management. This study indicates that computer assistance helps overcome barriers associated with evaluating HRQL and PROs.
PURPOSE: This trial assessed the ability to enhance health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) evaluation in trials and patient management using computer assistance with a handheld device, called a personal digital assistant. The study assessed ease of use and psychometric properties of this approach, comparing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) paper form with the electronic (eLCSS-QL). Objectives were to: (1) measure completion times; (2) evaluate acceptability by patients, nurses, and physicians; (3) determine the correlation of the eLCSS-QL with the paper version; and (4) determine the feasibility of using a shorter visual analogue scale (VAS) in the electronic version. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were entered at 12 COMET clinics. All had: (a) stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer, (b) Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 60, (c) no prior chemotherapy, and (d) received initial courses of docetaxel + platinum. Of the 148 patients enrolled, characteristics were: men, 57 %; median, KPS 80 %; and median age, 67 years. Of these, 131 patients completed the evaluation form. RESULTS: The eLCSS-QL had excellent acceptance by patients, nurses, and physicians. Patients required 2.2 min (mean) to complete the eLCSS-QL. Reliability coefficients using Cronbach's alpha were high for the paper (0.84) and electronic (0.88) versions. The correlation coefficient between forms was high (0.92). The length of the VAS on the handheld pc (53 mm versus 100 mm on the paper format) resulted in nearly identical scores. CONCLUSIONS: The high acceptance rate by patients and professionals, the rapid completion time, ease of use, and strong psychometric properties confirm that the electronic LCSS (eLCSS-QL) is practical for use in trials and patient management. This study indicates that computer assistance helps overcome barriers associated with evaluating HRQL and PROs.
Authors: Frank Fossella; Jose R Pereira; Joachim von Pawel; Anna Pluzanska; Vera Gorbounova; Eckhard Kaukel; Karin V Mattson; Rodryg Ramlau; Aleksandra Szczesna; Panagiotis Fidias; Michael Millward; Chandra P Belani Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P J Hollen; R J Gralla; M G Kris; C Cox; C P Belani; S M Grunberg; J Crawford; J A Neidhart Journal: Cancer Date: 1994-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Heather L Gelhorn; Anne M Skalicky; Zaneta Balantac; Sonya Eremenco; Tricia Cimms; Katarina Halling; Patricia J Hollen; Richard J Gralla; Martin C Mahoney; Chris Sexton Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Patricia J Hollen; Richard J Gralla; Ryan D Gentzler; Richard D Hall; Bethany Coyne; Haiying Cheng; Balazs Halmos; Jane Gildersleeve; Claudia Calderon; Ivora Hinton; Geoffrey Weiss; Jeffrey Crawford; Jane Cerise; Martin Lesser Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-11-10
Authors: J C Kuo; D M Graham; A Salvarrey; F Kassam; L W Le; F A Shepherd; R Burkes; P J Hollen; R J Gralla; N B Leighl Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Alejandro Recio-Boiles; Jose N Galeas; Bernard Goldwasser; Karla Sanchez; Louise M W Man; Ryan D Gentzler; Jane Gildersleeve; Patricia J Hollen; Richard J Gralla Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: D Blum; D Koeberle; A Omlin; J Walker; R Von Moos; W Mingrone; S deWolf-Linder; S Hayoz; S Kaasa; F Strasser; K Ribi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-04-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Bernhard Holzner; Johannes M Giesinger; Jakob Pinggera; Stefan Zugal; Felix Schöpf; Anne S Oberguggenberger; Eva M Gamper; August Zabernigg; Barbara Weber; Gerhard Rumpold Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 2.796