PURPOSE: Although health-related quality of life (HRQL) is increasingly assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HRQL findings are not always incorporated into clinical decision making. We examined the current perspectives of oncologists on the use of HRQL findings from RCTs, and variation of these perspectives between countries and specialties. METHODS: A cross-sectional e-survey of oncologist members of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group, the United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Clinical Studies Groups, and the Australia/New Zealand cancer clinical trials network was conducted. Respondents reported their perceptions of the usefulness of RCT HRQL outcomes for informing practice, their use of HRQL findings in practice, barriers/facilitators to this use, and preferences for HRQL data presentation in RCT publications. Chi-square tests compared responses between countries and specialties. RESULTS: A total of 396 oncologists participated (estimated response rate: 30%). The most frequently reported specialties were medical (46%) and radiation (37%) oncology. HRQL findings from RCTs were reported as useful (73%), but were infrequently used to guide clinical decisions with patients. Perceived barriers were lack of time (67%) and understanding (57%), and concerns about generalizability of results (68%). Identified facilitators included joint publication of HRQL/clinical outcomes (96%) and summary of clinical implications of HRQL findings in RCT publications (76%). Use of HRQL findings, perceived barriers/facilitators, and presentation preferences did not differ by country or specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists support HRQL findings from RCTs, but perceive important barriers to their use in clinical decision making, regardless of country or specialty. Combined, clear reporting of HRQL/clinical data may facilitate their clinical application.
PURPOSE: Although health-related quality of life (HRQL) is increasingly assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HRQL findings are not always incorporated into clinical decision making. We examined the current perspectives of oncologists on the use of HRQL findings from RCTs, and variation of these perspectives between countries and specialties. METHODS: A cross-sectional e-survey of oncologist members of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group, the United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Clinical Studies Groups, and the Australia/New Zealand cancer clinical trials network was conducted. Respondents reported their perceptions of the usefulness of RCT HRQL outcomes for informing practice, their use of HRQL findings in practice, barriers/facilitators to this use, and preferences for HRQL data presentation in RCT publications. Chi-square tests compared responses between countries and specialties. RESULTS: A total of 396 oncologists participated (estimated response rate: 30%). The most frequently reported specialties were medical (46%) and radiation (37%) oncology. HRQL findings from RCTs were reported as useful (73%), but were infrequently used to guide clinical decisions with patients. Perceived barriers were lack of time (67%) and understanding (57%), and concerns about generalizability of results (68%). Identified facilitators included joint publication of HRQL/clinical outcomes (96%) and summary of clinical implications of HRQL findings in RCT publications (76%). Use of HRQL findings, perceived barriers/facilitators, and presentation preferences did not differ by country or specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists support HRQL findings from RCTs, but perceive important barriers to their use in clinical decision making, regardless of country or specialty. Combined, clear reporting of HRQL/clinical data may facilitate their clinical application.
Authors: Michael Brundage; Brenda Bass; Judith Davidson; John Queenan; Andrea Bezjak; Jolie Ringash; Anna Wilkinson; Deb Feldman-Stewart Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-11-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Angus G K McNair; Sara T Brookes; Christopher R Davis; Miltiadis Argyropoulos; Jane M Blazeby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Derek Kyte; Helen Duffy; Adrian Gheorghe; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Jonathan Ives; Heather Draper; Michael Brundage; Jane Blazeby; Madeleine King Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Julie Rouette; Melanie Calvert; Madeleine T King; Lori McLeod; Patricia Holch; Michael J Palmer; Michael Brundage Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Sasja A Schepers; Lotte Haverman; Sima Zadeh; Martha A Grootenhuis; Lori Wiener Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Samantha Cruz Rivera; Derek G Kyte; Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi; Anita L Slade; Christel McMullan; Melanie J Calvert Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Natasha A Roberts; Monika Janda; Angela M Stover; Kimberly E Alexander; David Wyld; Alison Mudge Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Michael J Palmer; Michael Brundage; Melanie Calvert; Martin R Stockler; Madeleine T King Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 2.692