Paul J Novotny1, Amylou C Dueck2, Daniel Satele1, Marlene H Frost3, Timothy J Beebe4, Kathleen J Yost1, Minji K Lee1, David T Eton1, Susan Yount5, David Cella5, Tito R Mendoza6, Charles S Cleeland6, Victoria Blinder7, Ethan Basch8, Jeff A Sloan1. 1. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. 3. Women's Cancer Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 7. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 8. UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. METHODS: This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran-Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. RESULTS: A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach's alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. CONCLUSION: The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.
BACKGROUND: In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. METHODS: This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran-Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. RESULTS: A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach's alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. CONCLUSION: The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.
Authors: Elaine McColl; Martin Paul Eccles; Nicolette Sarah Rousseau; Ian Nicholas Steen; David William Parkin; Jeremy Michael Grimshaw Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Amylou C Dueck; Tito R Mendoza; Sandra A Mitchell; Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen M Castro; Lauren J Rogak; Thomas M Atkinson; Antonia V Bennett; Andrea M Denicoff; Ann M O'Mara; Yuelin Li; Steven B Clauser; Donna M Bryant; James D Bearden; Theresa A Gillis; Jay K Harness; Robert D Siegel; Diane B Paul; Charles S Cleeland; Deborah Schrag; Jeff A Sloan; Amy P Abernethy; Deborah W Bruner; Lori M Minasian; Ethan Basch Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Ethan Basch; Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Steven B Clauser; Lori M Minasian; Amylou C Dueck; Tito R Mendoza; Jennifer Hay; Thomas M Atkinson; Amy P Abernethy; Deborah W Bruner; Charles S Cleeland; Jeff A Sloan; Ram Chilukuri; Paul Baumgartner; Andrea Denicoff; Diane St Germain; Ann M O'Mara; Alice Chen; Joseph Kelaghan; Antonia V Bennett; Laura Sit; Lauren Rogak; Allison Barz; Diane B Paul; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David Cella; Seung W Choi; David M Condon; Ben Schalet; Ron D Hays; Nan E Rothrock; Susan Yount; Karon F Cook; Richard C Gershon; Dagmar Amtmann; Darren A DeWalt; Paul A Pilkonis; Arthur A Stone; Kevin Weinfurt; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Value Health Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Minji K Lee; Benjamin D Schalet; David Cella; Kathleen J Yost; Amy C Dueck; Paul J Novotny; Jeff A Sloan Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2020-12-10