Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 6/2015

01-06-2015

Integrating health-related quality of life findings from randomized clinical trials into practice: an international study of oncologists’ perspectives

Auteurs: Julie Rouette, Jane Blazeby, Madeleine King, Melanie Calvert, Yingwei Peng, Ralph M. Meyer, Jolie Ringash, Melanie Walker, Michael D. Brundage

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2015

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

Although health-related quality of life (HRQL) is increasingly assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HRQL findings are not always incorporated into clinical decision making. We examined the current perspectives of oncologists on the use of HRQL findings from RCTs, and variation of these perspectives between countries and specialties.

Methods

A cross-sectional e-survey of oncologist members of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group, the United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Clinical Studies Groups, and the Australia/New Zealand cancer clinical trials network was conducted. Respondents reported their perceptions of the usefulness of RCT HRQL outcomes for informing practice, their use of HRQL findings in practice, barriers/facilitators to this use, and preferences for HRQL data presentation in RCT publications. Chi-square tests compared responses between countries and specialties.

Results

A total of 396 oncologists participated (estimated response rate: 30 %). The most frequently reported specialties were medical (46 %) and radiation (37 %) oncology. HRQL findings from RCTs were reported as useful (73 %), but were infrequently used to guide clinical decisions with patients. Perceived barriers were lack of time (67 %) and understanding (57 %), and concerns about generalizability of results (68 %). Identified facilitators included joint publication of HRQL/clinical outcomes (96 %) and summary of clinical implications of HRQL findings in RCT publications (76 %). Use of HRQL findings, perceived barriers/facilitators, and presentation preferences did not differ by country or specialty.

Conclusions

Oncologists support HRQL findings from RCTs, but perceive important barriers to their use in clinical decision making, regardless of country or specialty. Combined, clear reporting of HRQL/clinical data may facilitate their clinical application.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
2.
go back to reference Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R., et al. (2001). Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of eastern cooperative oncology group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10, 1–13.PubMedCrossRef Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R., et al. (2001). Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of eastern cooperative oncology group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10, 1–13.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Guyatt, G. H., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2007). Exploration of the value of health-related quality-of-life information from clinical research and into clinical practice. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82, 1229–1239.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt, G. H., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2007). Exploration of the value of health-related quality-of-life information from clinical research and into clinical practice. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82, 1229–1239.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Greenhalgh, J. (2009). The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work, and why? Quality of Life Research, 18, 115–123.PubMedCrossRef Greenhalgh, J. (2009). The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work, and why? Quality of Life Research, 18, 115–123.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Au, H.-J., Ringash, J., Brundage, M., et al. (2010). Added value of Health-Related Quality of Life measurement in cancer clinical trials: The experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10, 119–128.CrossRef Au, H.-J., Ringash, J., Brundage, M., et al. (2010). Added value of Health-Related Quality of Life measurement in cancer clinical trials: The experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10, 119–128.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Brundage, M., & Snyder, C. (2012). Patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: Using standards to break down barriers. Clinical Investigation, 2, 343–346.CrossRef Brundage, M., & Snyder, C. (2012). Patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: Using standards to break down barriers. Clinical Investigation, 2, 343–346.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Brundage, M., Bass, B., Jolie, R., et al. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20, 979–985.PubMedCrossRef Brundage, M., Bass, B., Jolie, R., et al. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20, 979–985.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Brundage, M., Bass, B., Davidson, J., et al. (2011). Patterns of reporting Health-Related Quality of Life outcomes in randomized clinical trials: Implications for clinicians and quality of life researchers. Quality of Life Research, 20, 653–664.PubMedCrossRef Brundage, M., Bass, B., Davidson, J., et al. (2011). Patterns of reporting Health-Related Quality of Life outcomes in randomized clinical trials: Implications for clinicians and quality of life researchers. Quality of Life Research, 20, 653–664.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Meldahl, M. L., Acaster, S., & Hayes, R. P. (2013). Exploration of oncologists’ attitudes toward and perceived value of patient-reported outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 22, 725–731.PubMedCrossRef Meldahl, M. L., Acaster, S., & Hayes, R. P. (2013). Exploration of oncologists’ attitudes toward and perceived value of patient-reported outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 22, 725–731.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Revicki, D., et al. (2011). Reporting quality of life in clinical trials: A CONSORT extension. Lancet, 378, 1684–1685.PubMedCrossRef Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Revicki, D., et al. (2011). Reporting quality of life in clinical trials: A CONSORT extension. Lancet, 378, 1684–1685.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sackett, D. (1991). How to get the most from and give the most to continuing medical education. In B. Haynes, D. Sackett, G. Guyatt & P. Tugwell (Eds.), Clinical epidemiology: A basic science for clinical medicine, 2nd ed. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Co. Sackett, D. (1991). How to get the most from and give the most to continuing medical education. In B. Haynes, D. Sackett, G. Guyatt & P. Tugwell (Eds.), Clinical epidemiology: A basic science for clinical medicine, 2nd ed. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Co.
13.
go back to reference Logan, J., & Graham, I. D. (1998). Toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary model of health care research use. Science Communication, 20, 227–246.CrossRef Logan, J., & Graham, I. D. (1998). Toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary model of health care research use. Science Communication, 20, 227–246.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys- the tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys- the tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley.
16.
go back to reference Gough, I., & Dalgleish, L. (1991). What value is given to quality of life by health professionals considering response to palliative chemotherapy for advanced cancer? Cancer, 68, 220–225.PubMedCrossRef Gough, I., & Dalgleish, L. (1991). What value is given to quality of life by health professionals considering response to palliative chemotherapy for advanced cancer? Cancer, 68, 220–225.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Bezjak, A., Taylor, K. M., Ng, P., et al. (1998). Quality-of-life information and clinical practice: the oncologist’s perspective. Cancer Prevention & Control, 2, 230–235. Bezjak, A., Taylor, K. M., Ng, P., et al. (1998). Quality-of-life information and clinical practice: the oncologist’s perspective. Cancer Prevention & Control, 2, 230–235.
18.
go back to reference Walsh, D. L., & Emrich, L. J. (1998). Measuring cancer patients’ quality of life: A look at physician attitudes. New York State Journal of Medicine, 88, 354–357. Walsh, D. L., & Emrich, L. J. (1998). Measuring cancer patients’ quality of life: A look at physician attitudes. New York State Journal of Medicine, 88, 354–357.
19.
go back to reference Taylor, K. M., Feldstein, M. L., Skeel, R., et al. (1994). Fundamental dilemmas of the randomized clinical trial process: Results of a survey of the 1,737 eastern cooperative oncology group investigators. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 12, 1796–1805.PubMed Taylor, K. M., Feldstein, M. L., Skeel, R., et al. (1994). Fundamental dilemmas of the randomized clinical trial process: Results of a survey of the 1,737 eastern cooperative oncology group investigators. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 12, 1796–1805.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Morris, J., Perez, D., & McNoe, B. (1998). The use of quality of life data in clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 7, 85–91.PubMedCrossRef Morris, J., Perez, D., & McNoe, B. (1998). The use of quality of life data in clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 7, 85–91.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Ringash, J., & Bezjak, A. (2006). Use of quality-of-life assessment for nasopharyngeal cancer. Clinical Oncology (R Coll Radiol), 18, 725–727.CrossRef Ringash, J., & Bezjak, A. (2006). Use of quality-of-life assessment for nasopharyngeal cancer. Clinical Oncology (R Coll Radiol), 18, 725–727.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Goodwin, P. J., Black, J. T., Bordeleau, L. J., et al. (2003). Health-related quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer—taking stock. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95, 263–281.PubMedCrossRef Goodwin, P. J., Black, J. T., Bordeleau, L. J., et al. (2003). Health-related quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer—taking stock. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95, 263–281.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Efficace, F., Feuerstein, M., Fayers, P., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: Methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making. European Urology, 66, 416–427. Efficace, F., Feuerstein, M., Fayers, P., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: Methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making. European Urology, 66, 416–427.
24.
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, 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, 1097–1105.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference McNair, A. G., Brookes, S. T., Davis, C. R., et al. (2010). Communicating the results of randomized clinical trials: Do patients understand multidimensional patient-reported outcomes? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28, 738–743.PubMedCrossRef McNair, A. G., Brookes, S. T., Davis, C. R., et al. (2010). Communicating the results of randomized clinical trials: Do patients understand multidimensional patient-reported outcomes? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28, 738–743.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Altman, D. G., et al. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309, 814–822.PubMedCrossRef Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Altman, D. G., et al. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309, 814–822.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Brundage, M., Blazeby, J., Revicki, D., et al. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: Development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1161–1175.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Brundage, M., Blazeby, J., Revicki, D., et al. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: Development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1161–1175.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Calvert, M., Brundage, M., Jacobsen, P. B., et al. (2013). The CONSORT patient-reported outcome (PRO) extension: Implications for clinical trials and practice. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 184.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Calvert, M., Brundage, M., Jacobsen, P. B., et al. (2013). The CONSORT patient-reported outcome (PRO) extension: Implications for clinical trials and practice. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 184.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
31.
Metagegevens
Titel
Integrating health-related quality of life findings from randomized clinical trials into practice: an international study of oncologists’ perspectives
Auteurs
Julie Rouette
Jane Blazeby
Madeleine King
Melanie Calvert
Yingwei Peng
Ralph M. Meyer
Jolie Ringash
Melanie Walker
Michael D. Brundage
Publicatiedatum
01-06-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0871-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2015

Quality of Life Research 6/2015 Naar de uitgave