Elliott Tolbert1,2, Michael Brundage3, Elissa Bantug4, Amanda L Blackford4,5, Katherine Smith6,4,7, Claire Snyder8,6,4,9. 1. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. etolber2@jhmi.edu. 2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 725, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. etolber2@jhmi.edu. 3. Cancer Clinic of Southeastern Ontario, Queens Cancer Research Institute, 25 King Street West, Kingston, ON, K7L 5P9, Canada. 4. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, 1650 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 5. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 550 N. Broadway, Room 1111, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. 6. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 725, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. 7. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 726, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. 8. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 9. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 649, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can promote valuable patient-clinician communication and aid the decision-making process regarding treatment options. Despite these benefits, both patients and doctors face challenges in interpreting PRO scores. The purpose of this study was to identify best practices for presenting PRO results expressed as proportions of patients with changes from baseline (improved/stable/worsened) for use in patient educational materials and decision aids. 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 saw clinical trial data comparing two treatments as proportions changed using three different formats: pie charts, bar graphs, icon arrays. Interpretation accuracy, clarity, and format preference were analyzed quantitatively and online survey comments and interviews, qualitatively. RESULTS: The internet sample included 629 patients, 139 clinicians, and 249 researchers; 10 patients and 5 clinicians completed interviews. Bar graphs were less accurately interpreted than pie charts (OR 0.39; p < .0001) and icon arrays (OR 0.47; p < .0001). Bar graphs and icon arrays were less likely to be rated clear than pie charts (OR 0.37 and OR 0.18; both p < .0001). Qualitative data informed interpretation of these findings. CONCLUSIONS: For communicating PROs as proportions changed in patient educational materials and decision aids, these results support the use of pie charts.
PURPOSE:Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can promote valuable patient-clinician communication and aid the decision-making process regarding treatment options. Despite these benefits, both patients and doctors face challenges in interpreting PRO scores. The purpose of this study was to identify best practices for presenting PRO results expressed as proportions of patients with changes from baseline (improved/stable/worsened) for use in patient educational materials and decision aids. 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 saw clinical trial data comparing two treatments as proportions changed using three different formats: pie charts, bar graphs, icon arrays. Interpretation accuracy, clarity, and format preference were analyzed quantitatively and online survey comments and interviews, qualitatively. RESULTS: The internet sample included 629 patients, 139 clinicians, and 249 researchers; 10 patients and 5 clinicians completed interviews. Bar graphs were less accurately interpreted than pie charts (OR 0.39; p < .0001) and icon arrays (OR 0.47; p < .0001). Bar graphs and icon arrays were less likely to be rated clear than pie charts (OR 0.37 and OR 0.18; both p < .0001). Qualitative data informed interpretation of these findings. CONCLUSIONS: For communicating PROs as proportions changed in patient educational materials and decision aids, these results support the use of pie charts.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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