What matters to patients and clinicians when discussing the impact of cancer medicines on health-related quality of life? Consensus-based mixed methods approach in prostate cancer.
Consensus methods
Health-related quality of life
Mixed methods
PROMs
Patient-reported outcomes
Prostate cancer
Journal
Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
ISSN: 1433-7339
Titre abrégé: Support Care Cancer
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9302957
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
06
07
2021
accepted:
27
11
2021
pubmed:
9
12
2021
medline:
23
2
2022
entrez:
8
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To identify what matters to clinicians and patients when discussing cancer medicines' impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A framework of HRQoL domain/domain elements was developed, informed by analysis of published patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), applicable to prostate cancer. Using mixed methods (eDelphi, Nominal Group Technique and questionnaire), prostate cancer clinicians and patients attending prostate cancer clinics and support groups were asked which domains/domain elements would be important to them when discussing the impact prostate cancer medicines have on their HRQoL. Twenty-one clinicians and 71 patients participated from the West of Scotland. Clinicians and patients identified 53/62 domain elements across seven domains as important, of which 32 (60%) were common to both groups. Clinicians placed more importance than patients on Mood & Emotion; in contrast, patients placed importance on a broader range of Symptoms & Side Effects, being informed about their care, and having effective healthcare professional collaboration. This study provides insight into the similarities and differences between what clinicians and patients think is important when discussing the impact of cancer medicines on HRQoL. Future research should involve exploring the potential for consistency of medicines PROMs across different cancer types to support patient-clinician communication and drive improvements in care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34878587
doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06724-6
pii: 10.1007/s00520-021-06724-6
pmc: PMC8857102
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3141-3150Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
World Health Organisation. Cancer: key facts. 2018 12 September 2018; Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer .
Rawla, P., (2019) Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World Journal of Oncology 10(2): p. 63–89. https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1191
Crocetti, E., (2015) Epidemiology of prostate cancer in Europe [Internet Resource], European Commission. Available from: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC101382
Penson DF et al (2008) Prostate cancer: epidemiology and health-related quality of life. Urology 72(6):S3-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.10.006
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.10.006
pubmed: 19095126
Dellis A et al (2019) Management of advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review of existing guidelines and recommendations. Cancer Treat Rev 73:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.11.005
doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.11.005
pubmed: 30623865
Forgione M et al (2019) Satisfaction with care in men with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 28(4):e13028. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13028
doi: 10.1111/ecc.13028
Ferrans CE et al (2005) Conceptual model of health-related quality of life. J Nurs Scholarsh 37(4):336–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00058.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00058.x
pubmed: 16396406
Basch E et al (2017) Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 318(2):197–198. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7156
doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156
pubmed: 28586821
pmcid: 5817466
Davis C et al (2017) Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009–13. BMJ 359:j4530. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4530
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4530
pubmed: 28978555
pmcid: 5627352
Basch E, Wilfong L, Schrag D (2020) Adding patient-reported outcomes to Medicare’s oncology value-based payment model. JAMA 323(3):1538–3598. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.19970
doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.19970
Atkinson TM et al (2012) Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians. Qual Life Res 21(7):1159–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0031-4
doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0031-4
pubmed: 21984468
Basch E et al (2006) Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncology 7(11):903–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70910-X
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70910-X
pubmed: 17081915
Basch E et al (2009) Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(23):1624–1632. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp386
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp386
pubmed: 19920223
pmcid: 2786917
Brunelli C et al (1998) Quality-of-life evaluation : when do terminal cancer patients and health-care providers agree? J Pain Symptom Manage 15(3):151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-3924(97)00351-5
doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(97)00351-5
pubmed: 9564116
Chandwani KD et al (2017) Lack of patient-clinician concordance in cancer patients: its relation with patient variables. J Pain Symptom Manage 53(6):988–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.12.347
doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.12.347
pubmed: 28185892
pmcid: 5474148
Chidambaram, S., et al., (2014) Patient and provider concordance on symptoms during the oncology outpatient clinic visit. Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, 12(10): p. 370–7. https://doi.org/10.12788/jcso.0080 .
Nekolaichuk CL et al (1999) A comparison of patient and proxy symptom assessments in advanced cancer patients. Palliat Med 13(4):311–323. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921699675854885
doi: 10.1191/026921699675854885
pubmed: 10659100
Efficace F et al (2014) Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making. Eur Urol 66(3):416–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.017
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.017
pubmed: 24210091
Velikova G et al (2004) Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 22(4):714–724. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078
pubmed: 14966096
Roberts NA et al (2020) Statistical process control assessed implementation fidelity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care. J Clin Epidemiol 127:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.022
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.022
pubmed: 32569618
Calvert M et al (2019) Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ 364:k5267. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5267
doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5267
pubmed: 30679170
Penedo FJ et al (2020) The increasing value of eHealth in the delivery of patient-centred cancer care. Lancet Oncology 21(5):240–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30021-8
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30021-8
Black N et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes: pathways to better health, better services, and better societies. Qual Life Res 25(5):1103–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1168-3
doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1168-3
pubmed: 26563251
Devlin, N.J., Appleby, J. (2010) Getting the most out of PROMs: putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision-making. Office of Health Economics, 2010.
Camuso N et al (2016) Engaging patients as partners in developing patient-reported outcome measures in cancer-a review of the literature. Support Care Cancer 24(8):3543–3549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3151-0
doi: 10.1007/s00520-016-3151-0
pubmed: 27021391
Caram MEV et al (2019) Patient and provider variables associated with variation in the systemic treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Urology Practice 6(4):234–242. https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000020
doi: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000020
pubmed: 31276025
pmcid: 6605774
dela Rama F and C. Pratz 2015 Navigating treatment of metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer: nursing perspectives Clin J Oncol Nurs 19 6 723 732 https://doi.org/10.1188/15.CJON.723-732
Basch, E., et al., (2014) Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). Journal of the National Cancer Institute 106(9). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju244 .
Dooley, C., et al., Irish Prostate Cancer Outcomes Research Annual Report 2018. Available from: https://www.ipcor.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IPCOR_Annual-Report2018_Digital_NEW.pdf
Prostate Cancer UK, Life after prostate cancer diagnosis - study summary. 2018.Available from: https://www.lifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosis.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/04/Study-summary-The-Life-After-Prostate-Cancer-Diagnosis-Study_20-pages.pdf
Scottish Government, Recovery and redesign: cancer services - action plan. 2020. Available from: https://www.gov.scot/publications/recovery-redesign-action-plan-cancer-services/
Jones J, Hunter D (1995) Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311(7001):376–380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376
doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376
pubmed: 7640549
pmcid: 2550437
G Kleiner-Fisman P Gryfe G Naglie 2013 A patient-based needs assessment for living well with parkinson disease: implementation via nominal group technique Parkinson’s Disease https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/974964
Marino LV et al (2018) The development of a consensus-based nutritional pathway for infants with CHD before surgery using a modified Delphi process. Cardiol Young 28(7):938–948. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047951118000549
doi: 10.1017/S1047951118000549
pubmed: 29704905
pmcid: 5977758
Fitch MI (2008) Supportive care framework. Can Oncol Nurs J 18(1):6–24. https://doi.org/10.5737/1181912x181614
doi: 10.5737/1181912x181614
pubmed: 18512565
National Cancer Institute (NCI), Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0., N.I.o. Health, Editor. 2010: Services USDoHH.
Paterson C et al (2015) Identifying the unmet supportive care needs of men living with and beyond prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Oncol Nurs 19(4):405–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2014.12.007
doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2014.12.007
pubmed: 25613370
Boulkedid R et al (2011) Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 6(6):e20476. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020476
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020476
pubmed: 21694759
pmcid: 3111406
McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP (2016) How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm 38(3):655–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x
doi: 10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x
pubmed: 26846316
pmcid: 4909789
Creswell, J. and V.L. Plano Clark, (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK (1992) The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 45(7):743–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(92)90052-o
doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90052-o
pubmed: 1619454
Wagland R et al (2019) ‘Very difficult for an ordinary guy’: factors influencing the quality of treatment decision-making amongst men diagnosed with localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: findings from a UK-wide mixed methods study. Patient Educ Couns 102(4):797–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.004
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.004
pubmed: 30527732
Fletcher C et al (2017) The information needs of adult cancer survivors across the cancer continuum: a scoping review. Patient Educ Counsel 100(3):383–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.008
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.008
Regnault A et al (2017) Towards the use of mixed methods inquiry as best practice in health outcomes research. J Patient Report Outcomes 2(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0043-8
doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0043-8
C Hsu BA Sandford 2007 The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus Pract Assess Res Eval 12 https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90
Scottish Government, Beating cancer: ambition and action. 2016. Available from: https://www.gov.scot/publications/beating-cancer-ambition-action-2016-update-achievements-new-action-testing-change/