Todd V Cartee1, Murad Alam2, Eric S Armbrecht3, Anit Behera2, Naomi Lawrence4, Jeremy S Bordeaux5, Christian L Baum6, Anthony Rossi7, Ian A Maher8. 1. Department of Dermatology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Dermatology, Saint Louis University Center for Health Outcomes Research, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Division of Dermatology, Cooper University Health Care, Camden, New Jersey. 5. Department of Dermatology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 7. Department of Dermatology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 8. Department of Dermatology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are critical to research directed at maximizing patient benefit. The outcomes patients consider most relevant in the treatment of skin cancer have not been directly investigated. OBJECTIVE: To develop a ranked list of outcomes deemed most important by patients with skin cancer through a proctored Delphi process. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with a history of skin cancer volunteered to participate in the patient summit. The patient members participated in a guided discussion to generate a long list of potentially relevant outcomes. The list was then condensed and ranked through 2 rounds of a proctored Delphi process. RESULTS: Patients were diverse in their skin cancer histories and complexities, ages, and states of residence. Twelve themes were rated as highly important by 70% or more of participants. Most of these themes related to patient education and the collaborative nature of the physician-patient relationship. Fear of recurrence and cosmetic outcome were also highly rated. Limitations include a preponderance of older patients and patients from the midwest and northeast. CONCLUSION: Patients with skin cancer overwhelmingly prioritize a shared decision-making process, in which they are actively engaged and value detailed education regarding their disease. This should inform future research directed at skin cancer treatment and current physician-patient interactions.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcomes are critical to research directed at maximizing patient benefit. The outcomes patients consider most relevant in the treatment of skin cancer have not been directly investigated. OBJECTIVE: To develop a ranked list of outcomes deemed most important by patients with skin cancer through a proctored Delphi process. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with a history of skin cancer volunteered to participate in the patient summit. The patient members participated in a guided discussion to generate a long list of potentially relevant outcomes. The list was then condensed and ranked through 2 rounds of a proctored Delphi process. RESULTS:Patients were diverse in their skin cancer histories and complexities, ages, and states of residence. Twelve themes were rated as highly important by 70% or more of participants. Most of these themes related to patient education and the collaborative nature of the physician-patient relationship. Fear of recurrence and cosmetic outcome were also highly rated. Limitations include a preponderance of older patients and patients from the midwest and northeast. CONCLUSION:Patients with skin cancer overwhelmingly prioritize a shared decision-making process, in which they are actively engaged and value detailed education regarding their disease. This should inform future research directed at skin cancer treatment and current physician-patient interactions.
Authors: M Laurin Council; Murad Alam; Hugh M Gloster; Jeremy S Bordeaux; Bryan T Carroll; Justin J Leitenberger; Oliver J Wisco; Ian A Maher Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Donald L Morton; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Nicola Mozzillo; Omgo E Nieweg; Daniel F Roses; Harold J Hoekstra; Constantine P Karakousis; Christopher A Puleo; Brendon J Coventry; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; B Mark Smithers; Eberhard Paul; William G Kraybill; J Gregory McKinnon; He-Jing Wang; Robert Elashoff; Mark B Faries Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John S Rhee; B Alex Matthews; Marcy Neuburg; Timothy L Smith; Mary Burzynski; Ann B Nattinger Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Erica H Lee; Anne F Klassen; Kishwer S Nehal; Stefan J Cano; Janet Waters; Andrea L Pusic Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Lindy Paulina Johanna Arts; Rick Waalboer-Spuij; Kees-Peter de Roos; Monique R T M Thissen; Luc J Scheijmans; Mieke J Aarts; Simone Oerlemans; Marnix L M Lybeert; Marieke W J Louwman Journal: Dermatology Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 5.366