Elliott Tolbert1,2,3,4, Michael Brundage1,2,3,4, Elissa Bantug1,2,3,4, Amanda L Blackford1,2,3,4, Katherine Smith1,2,3,4, Claire Snyder1,2,3,4. 1. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA (ET, CS). 2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD (ET, KS, CS). 3. Queens Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada (MB). 4. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD (EB, ALB, KS, CS).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials and research studies can inform patient-clinician decision making. However, data presentation issues specific to PROs, such as scaling directionality (higher scores may represent better or worse outcomes) and scoring strategies (normed v. nonnormed scores), can make the interpretation of PRO scores uniquely challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify the association of PRO score directionality, score norming, and other factors on a) how accurately PRO scores are interpreted and b) how clearly they are rated by patients, clinicians, and PRO researchers. METHODS: We electronically surveyed adult cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers and conducted one-on-one cognitive interviews with patients/survivors and clinicians. Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 line graph formats showing longitudinal change: higher scores indicating "better," "more" (better for function, worse for symptoms), or "normed" to a population average. Quantitative data evaluated interpretation accuracy and clarity. Online survey comments and cognitive interviews were analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: The Internet sample included 629 patients, 139 clinicians, and 249 researchers; 10 patients and 5 clinicians completed cognitive interviews. "Normed" line graphs were less accurately interpreted than "more" (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; P = 0.04). "Better" line graphs were more accurately interpreted than both "more" (OR = 1.43; P = 0.01) and "normed" (OR = 1.88; P = 0.04). "Better" line graphs were more likely to be rated clear than "more" (OR = 1.51; P = 0.05). Qualitative data informed interpretation of these findings. LIMITATIONS: The survey relied on the online platforms used for distribution and consequent snowball sampling. We do not have information regarding participants' numeracy/graph literacy. CONCLUSIONS: For communicating PROs as line graphs in patient educational materials and decision aids, these results support using graphs, with higher scores consistently indicating better outcomes.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials and research studies can inform patient-clinician decision making. However, data presentation issues specific to PROs, such as scaling directionality (higher scores may represent better or worse outcomes) and scoring strategies (normed v. nonnormed scores), can make the interpretation of PRO scores uniquely challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify the association of PRO score directionality, score norming, and other factors on a) how accurately PRO scores are interpreted and b) how clearly they are rated by patients, clinicians, and PRO researchers. METHODS: We electronically surveyed adult cancerpatients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers and conducted one-on-one cognitive interviews with patients/survivors and clinicians. Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 line graph formats showing longitudinal change: higher scores indicating "better," "more" (better for function, worse for symptoms), or "normed" to a population average. Quantitative data evaluated interpretation accuracy and clarity. Online survey comments and cognitive interviews were analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: The Internet sample included 629 patients, 139 clinicians, and 249 researchers; 10 patients and 5 clinicians completed cognitive interviews. "Normed" line graphs were less accurately interpreted than "more" (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; P = 0.04). "Better" line graphs were more accurately interpreted than both "more" (OR = 1.43; P = 0.01) and "normed" (OR = 1.88; P = 0.04). "Better" line graphs were more likely to be rated clear than "more" (OR = 1.51; P = 0.05). Qualitative data informed interpretation of these findings. LIMITATIONS: The survey relied on the online platforms used for distribution and consequent snowball sampling. We do not have information regarding participants' numeracy/graph literacy. CONCLUSIONS: For communicating PROs as line graphs in patient educational materials and decision aids, these results support using graphs, with higher scores consistently indicating better outcomes.
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
Authors: Deborah Watkins Bruner; Charlene J Bryan; Neil Aaronson; C Craig Blackmore; Michael Brundage; David Cella; Patricia A Ganz; Carolyn Gotay; Pamela S Hinds; Alice B Kornblith; Benjamin Movsas; Jeff Sloan; Lari Wenzel; Giles Whalen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-11-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Elissa T Bantug; Theresa Coles; Katherine C Smith; Claire F Snyder; Julie Rouette; Michael D Brundage Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2015-11-02
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-08-27
Authors: Natalie Joseph-Williams; Robert Newcombe; Mary Politi; Marie-Anne Durand; Stephanie Sivell; Dawn Stacey; Annette O'Connor; Robert J Volk; Adrian Edwards; Carol Bennett; Michael Pignone; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Elliott Tolbert; Michael Brundage; Elissa Bantug; Amanda L Blackford; Katherine Smith; Claire Snyder Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Meghan Reading Turchioe; Lisa V Grossman; Annie C Myers; Dawon Baik; Parag Goyal; Ruth M Masterson Creber Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Olga C Damman; Anant Jani; Brigit A de Jong; Annemarie Becker; Margot J Metz; Martine C de Bruijne; Danielle R Timmermans; Martina C Cornel; Dirk T Ubbink; Marije van der Steen; Muir Gray; Carla van El Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2019-12-15 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Olga C Damman; Marjolein E A Verbiest; Suzanne I Vonk; Henk W Berendse; Bastiaan R Bloem; Martine C de Bruijne; Marjan J Faber Journal: Health Expect Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 3.377
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: Marie A Flannery; Eva Culakova; Beverly E Canin; Luke Peppone; Erika Ramsdale; Supriya G Mohile Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L F van de Water; J J van Kleef; W P M Dijksterhuis; I Henselmans; H G van den Boorn; N M Vaarzon Morel; K F Schut; J G Daams; E M A Smets; H W M van Laarhoven Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 4.147