Jason Izard1, Andrea Hartzler2, Daniel I Avery1, Cheryl Shih1, Bruce L Dalkin1, John L Gore3. 1. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 2. The Information School, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: jlgore@u.washington.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary treatment of localized prostate cancer can result in bothersome urinary, sexual, and bowel symptoms. Yet clinical application of health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) questionnaires is rare. We employed user-centered design to develop graphic dashboards of questionnaire responses from patients with prostate cancer to facilitate clinical integration of HRQOL measurement. METHODS: We interviewed 50 prostate cancer patients and 50 providers, assessed literacy with validated instruments (Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine short form, Subjective Numeracy Scale, Graphical Literacy Scale), and presented participants with prototype dashboards that display prostate cancer-specific HRQOL with graphic elements derived from patient focus groups. We assessed dashboard comprehension and preferences in table, bar, line, and pictograph formats with patient scores contextualized with HRQOL scores of similar patients serving as a comparison group. RESULTS: Health literacy (mean score, 6.8/7) and numeracy (mean score, 4.5/6) of patient participants was high. Patients favored the bar chart (mean rank, 1.8 [P = .12] vs line graph [P < .01] vs table and pictograph); providers demonstrated similar preference for table, bar, and line formats (ranked first by 30%, 34%, and 34% of providers, respectively). Providers expressed unsolicited concerns over presentation of comparison group scores (n = 19; 38%) and impact on clinic efficiency (n = 16; 32%). CONCLUSION: Based on preferences of prostate cancer patients and providers, we developed the design concept of a dynamic HRQOL dashboard that permits a base patient-centered report in bar chart format that can be toggled to other formats and include error bars that frame comparison group scores. Inclusion of lower literacy patients may yield different preferences.
BACKGROUND: Primary treatment of localized prostate cancer can result in bothersome urinary, sexual, and bowel symptoms. Yet clinical application of health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) questionnaires is rare. We employed user-centered design to develop graphic dashboards of questionnaire responses from patients with prostate cancer to facilitate clinical integration of HRQOL measurement. METHODS: We interviewed 50 prostate cancerpatients and 50 providers, assessed literacy with validated instruments (Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine short form, Subjective Numeracy Scale, Graphical Literacy Scale), and presented participants with prototype dashboards that display prostate cancer-specific HRQOL with graphic elements derived from patient focus groups. We assessed dashboard comprehension and preferences in table, bar, line, and pictograph formats with patient scores contextualized with HRQOL scores of similar patients serving as a comparison group. RESULTS: Health literacy (mean score, 6.8/7) and numeracy (mean score, 4.5/6) of patientparticipants was high. Patients favored the bar chart (mean rank, 1.8 [P = .12] vs line graph [P < .01] vs table and pictograph); providers demonstrated similar preference for table, bar, and line formats (ranked first by 30%, 34%, and 34% of providers, respectively). Providers expressed unsolicited concerns over presentation of comparison group scores (n = 19; 38%) and impact on clinic efficiency (n = 16; 32%). CONCLUSION: Based on preferences of prostate cancerpatients and providers, we developed the design concept of a dynamic HRQOL dashboard that permits a base patient-centered report in bar chart format that can be toggled to other formats and include error bars that frame comparison group scores. Inclusion of lower literacy patients may yield different preferences.
Authors: Kirsten J McCaffery; Ann Dixon; Andrew Hayen; Jesse Jansen; Sian Smith; Judy M Simpson Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Cornelia M Ruland; Harald H Holte; Jo Røislien; Cathy Heaven; Glenys A Hamilton; Jørn Kristiansen; Heidi Sandbaek; Stein O Kvaløy; Line Hasund; Misoo C Ellison Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ahsan M Arozullah; Paul R Yarnold; Charles L Bennett; Robert C Soltysik; Michael S Wolf; Rosario M Ferreira; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Stacey Costello; Adil Shakir; Caroline Denwood; Fred B Bryant; Terry Davis Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-08-27
Authors: Carmit McMullen; Matthew Nielsen; Alison Firemark; Patricia Merino Price; Denise Nakatani; Jean Tuthill; Ruth McMyn; Anobel Odisho; Michael Meyers; David Shibata; Scott Gilbert Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Udit Singhal; Ted A Skolarus; John L Gore; Matthew G Parry; Ronald C Chen; Julie Nossiter; Alan Paniagua-Cruz; Arvin K George; Paul Cathcart; Jan van der Meulen; Daniela A Wittmann Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 16.430
Authors: Pearman D Parker; Sue P Heiney; Swann Arp Adams; Daniela B Friedman; Robin M Dawson Journal: Appl Nurs Res Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 2.257
Authors: Andrea L Hartzler; Jason P Izard; Bruce L Dalkin; Sean P Mikles; John L Gore Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-08-09 Impact factor: 4.497
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
Authors: Olga Strachna; Marc A Cohen; Monica M Allison; David G Pfister; Nancy Y Lee; Richard J Wong; Sean M McBride; Raia R Mohammed; Elizabeth Kemeny; Fernanda C G Polubriaginof; Alyse Kassa; Michael Hannon; Jennifer R Cracchiolo Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 6.860