Claire Snyder1,2,3, Katherine Smith4,5, Bernhard Holzner6, Yonaira M Rivera4, Elissa Bantug5, Michael Brundage7. 1. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 624 N. Broadway, Room 649, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. csnyder@jhu.edu. 2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. csnyder@jhu.edu. 3. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. csnyder@jhu.edu. 4. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 7. Queens Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care in multiple ways: (1) using an individual patient's PRO data to inform his/her management, (2) providing PRO results from comparative research studies in patient educational materials/decision aids, and (3) reporting PRO results from comparative research studies in peer-reviewed publications. Patients and clinicians endorse the value of PRO data; however, variations in how PRO measures are scored and scaled, and in how the data are reported, make interpretation challenging and limit their use in clinical practice. We conducted a modified Delphi process to develop stakeholder-engaged, evidence-based recommendations for PRO data display for the three above applications to promote understanding and use. METHODS: The Consensus Panel included cancer survivors/caregivers, oncologists, PRO researchers, and application-specific end-users (e.g., electronic health record vendors, decision aid developers, journal editors). We reviewed the data display issues and their evidence base during pre-meeting webinars. We then surveyed participants' initial perspectives, which informed discussions during an in-person meeting to develop consensus statements. These statements were ratified via a post-meeting survey. RESULTS: Issues addressed by consensus statements relevant to both individual and research data applications were directionality (whether higher scores are better/worse) and conveying score meaning (e.g., none/mild/moderate/severe). Issues specific to individual patient data presentation included representation (bar charts vs. line graphs) and highlighting possibly concerning scores (absolute and change). Issues specific to research study results presentation included handling normed data, conveying statistically significant differences, illustrating clinically important differences, and displaying proportions improved/stable/worsened. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations aim to optimize accurate and meaningful interpretation of PRO data.
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care in multiple ways: (1) using an individual patient's PRO data to inform his/her management, (2) providing PRO results from comparative research studies in patient educational materials/decision aids, and (3) reporting PRO results from comparative research studies in peer-reviewed publications. Patients and clinicians endorse the value of PRO data; however, variations in how PRO measures are scored and scaled, and in how the data are reported, make interpretation challenging and limit their use in clinical practice. We conducted a modified Delphi process to develop stakeholder-engaged, evidence-based recommendations for PRO data display for the three above applications to promote understanding and use. METHODS: The Consensus Panel included cancer survivors/caregivers, oncologists, PRO researchers, and application-specific end-users (e.g., electronic health record vendors, decision aid developers, journal editors). We reviewed the data display issues and their evidence base during pre-meeting webinars. We then surveyed participants' initial perspectives, which informed discussions during an in-person meeting to develop consensus statements. These statements were ratified via a post-meeting survey. RESULTS: Issues addressed by consensus statements relevant to both individual and research data applications were directionality (whether higher scores are better/worse) and conveying score meaning (e.g., none/mild/moderate/severe). Issues specific to individual patient data presentation included representation (bar charts vs. line graphs) and highlighting possibly concerning scores (absolute and change). Issues specific to research study results presentation included handling normed data, conveying statistically significant differences, illustrating clinically important differences, and displaying proportions improved/stable/worsened. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations aim to optimize accurate and meaningful interpretation of PRO data.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Clinical practice; Consensus statements; Data display; Patient-reported outcomes
Authors: Heather-Jane Au; Jolie Ringash; Michael Brundage; Michael Palmer; Harriet Richardson; Ralph M Meyer Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Amanda L Blackford; Antonio C Wolff; Michael A Carducci; Joseph M Herman; Albert W Wu Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 3.894
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: 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: Roxanne E Jensen; Claire F Snyder; Amy P Abernethy; Ethan Basch; Arnold L Potosky; Aaron C Roberts; Deena R Loeffler; Bryce B Reeve Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Catherine Acquadro; Rick Berzon; Dominique Dubois; Nancy Kline Leidy; Patrick Marquis; Dennis Revicki; Margaret Rothman Journal: Value Health Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Naomi C Brownstein; Anna Barata; Adam P Dicker; Hans Knoop; Brian D Gonzalez; Randa Perkins; Dana Rollison; Scott M Gilbert; Ronica Nanda; Anders Berglund; Ross Mitchell; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: S Ahmed; L Barbera; S J Bartlett; D G Bebb; M Brundage; S Bryan; W Y Cheung; N Coburn; T Crump; L Cuthbertson; D Howell; A F Klassen; S Leduc; M Li; N E Mayo; G McKinnon; R Olson; J Pink; J W Robinson; M J Santana; R Sawatzky; R S Moxam; S Sinclair; F Servidio-Italiano; W Temple Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Ethan Basch; Angela M Stover; Deborah Schrag; Arlene Chung; Jennifer Jansen; Sydney Henson; Philip Carr; Brenda Ginos; Allison Deal; Patricia A Spears; Mattias Jonsson; Antonia V Bennett; Gita Mody; Gita Thanarajasingam; Lauren J Rogak; Bryce B Reeve; Claire Snyder; Lisa A Kottschade; Marjory Charlot; Anna Weiss; Deborah Bruner; Amylou C Dueck Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-10
Authors: Jacqueline Vaughn; Donruedee Kamkhoad; Ryan J Shaw; Sharron L Docherty; Arvind P Subramaniam; Nirmish Shah Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Yiman Wang; Jaapjan D Snoep; Marc H Hemmelder; Koen E A van der Bogt; Willem Jan W Bos; Paul J M van der Boog; Friedo W Dekker; Aiko P J de Vries; Yvette Meuleman Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2021-01-20
Authors: Clara Breidenbach; Christoph Kowalski; Simone Wesselmann; Nora Tabea Sibert Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Madeleine King; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Olalekan Aiyegbusi; Derek Kyte; Anita Slade; An-Wen Chan; E Basch; Jill Bell; Antonia Bennett; Vishal Bhatnagar; Jane Blazeby; Andrew Bottomley; Julia Brown; Michael Brundage; Lisa Campbell; Joseph C Cappelleri; Heather Draper; Amylou C Dueck; Carolyn Ells; Lori Frank; Robert M Golub; Ingolf Griebsch; Kirstie Haywood; Amanda Hunn; Bellinda King-Kallimanis; Laura Martin; Sandra Mitchell; Thomas Morel; Linda Nelson; Josephine Norquist; Daniel O'Connor; Michael Palmer; Donald Patrick; Gary Price; Antoine Regnault; Ameeta Retzer; Dennis Revicki; Jane Scott; Richard Stephens; Grace Turner; Antonia Valakas; Galina Velikova; Maria von Hildebrand; Anita Walker; Lari Wenzel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.692
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