Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 4/2013

01-05-2013 | Brief Communication

Exploration of oncologists’ attitudes toward and perceived value of patient-reported outcomes

Auteurs: Michael L. Meldahl, Sarah Acaster, Risa P. Hayes

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2013

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

To understand oncologists’ attitudes toward patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and to learn how PRO data influence their clinical decision-making.

Methods

Twenty practicing oncologists participated in 1 of 4 semi-structured focus groups.

Results

Most oncologists had no experience with PRO measures, but were able to identify several concepts appropriate for patient-reported assessment. Participants agreed that clinical measures such as performance status were more meaningful to them, but acknowledged that PRO measures were more appropriate for assessing patient symptoms and treatment response. All oncologists believed that clinical efficacy and toxicity data were of primary importance, but that PROs become increasingly important when multiple treatments are available, in advanced or incurable disease, and in palliative care. Several issues prevented oncologists from being able to draw meaningful conclusions from PRO data: lack of familiarity with PRO measures, being presented with too much data to process, lack of clarity around a meaningful change in PRO measure scores, and lack of standardization in the use of PRO measures.

Conclusions

Oncologists indicated that PRO data are most influential in advanced or incurable disease and in palliative care. Improving the interpretability of PRO measures could increase the usefulness of PRO data in treatment decision-making.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. F. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: A review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 57(5), 278–300. CrossRef Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. F. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: A review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 57(5), 278–300. CrossRef
2.
go back to reference McKee, A. E., Farrell, A. T., Pazdur, R., & Woodcock, J. (2010). The role of the US food and drug administration review process: Clinical trial endpoints in oncology. The Oncologist, 15(suppl 1), 13–18. PubMedCrossRef McKee, A. E., Farrell, A. T., Pazdur, R., & Woodcock, J. (2010). The role of the US food and drug administration review process: Clinical trial endpoints in oncology. The Oncologist, 15(suppl 1), 13–18. PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Coons, S. J., Kothari, S., Monz, B. U., & Burke, L. B. (2011). The patient-reported outcome (PRO) consortium: Filling measurement gaps for PRO endpoints to support labeling claims. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 90(5), 743–748. PubMedCrossRef Coons, S. J., Kothari, S., Monz, B. U., & Burke, L. B. (2011). The patient-reported outcome (PRO) consortium: Filling measurement gaps for PRO endpoints to support labeling claims. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 90(5), 743–748. PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
5.
go back to reference Muhr, T. (2004) User’s Manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. Muhr, T. (2004) User’s Manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.
6.
go back to reference Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., et al. (1993). The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579. PubMed Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., et al. (1993). The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579. PubMed
7.
go back to reference Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376. PubMedCrossRef Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376. PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Karnofsky, D. A., & Burchenal, J. H. (1949). The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In C. M. MacLeod (Ed.), Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents (pp. 191–205). New York: Columbia University Press. Karnofsky, D. A., & Burchenal, J. H. (1949). The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In C. M. MacLeod (Ed.), Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents (pp. 191–205). New York: Columbia University Press.
9.
go back to reference Oken, M. M., Creech, F. H., Tormey, D. C., Horton, J., Davis, T. E., McFadden, E. T., et al. (1982). Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5(6), 649–665. PubMedCrossRef Oken, M. M., Creech, F. H., Tormey, D. C., Horton, J., Davis, T. E., McFadden, E. T., et al. (1982). Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5(6), 649–665. PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Brundage, M., Bass, B., Jolie, R., & Foley, K. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20(7), 979–985. PubMedCrossRef Brundage, M., Bass, B., Jolie, R., & Foley, K. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20(7), 979–985. PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R., DePetrillo, A. D., Comis, R., & Taylor, K. M. (2001). Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 1–13. PubMedCrossRef Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R., DePetrillo, A. D., Comis, R., & Taylor, K. M. (2001). Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 1–13. PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sloan, J. A., Frost, M. H., Berzon, R., Dueck, A., Guyatt, G., Moinpour, C., et al. (2006). The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: A summary for clinicians. Supportive Care in Cancer, 14(10), 988–998. PubMedCrossRef Sloan, J. A., Frost, M. H., Berzon, R., Dueck, A., Guyatt, G., Moinpour, C., et al. (2006). The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: A summary for clinicians. Supportive Care in Cancer, 14(10), 988–998. PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Osoba, D., Bezjak, A., Brundage, M., Zee, B., Tu, D., Pater, J., et al. (2005). Analysis and interpretation of health-related quality-of-life data from clinical trials: basic approach of The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. European Journal of Cancer, 41(2), 280–287. PubMedCrossRef Osoba, D., Bezjak, A., Brundage, M., Zee, B., Tu, D., Pater, J., et al. (2005). Analysis and interpretation of health-related quality-of-life data from clinical trials: basic approach of The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. European Journal of Cancer, 41(2), 280–287. PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Schünemann, H. J., Akl, E. A., & Guyatt, G. H. (2006). Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician’s perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 62. PubMedCrossRef Schünemann, H. J., Akl, E. A., & Guyatt, G. H. (2006). Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician’s perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 62. PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Guyatt, G., & Schunemann, H. (2007). How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Quality of Life Research, 16(7), 1097–1105. PubMedCrossRef Guyatt, G., & Schunemann, H. (2007). How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Quality of Life Research, 16(7), 1097–1105. PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. December: Guidance for Industry. US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. December: Guidance for Industry.
Metagegevens
Titel
Exploration of oncologists’ attitudes toward and perceived value of patient-reported outcomes
Auteurs
Michael L. Meldahl
Sarah Acaster
Risa P. Hayes
Publicatiedatum
01-05-2013
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0209-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2013

Quality of Life Research 4/2013 Naar de uitgave