Explore the vast range of titles available.

The assessment of patient reported outcomes and health-related quality of life continue to be rapidly evolving areas of research and this new edition reflects the development within the field from an emerging subject to one that is an essential part of the assessment of clinical trials and other clinical studies.

Purpose To improve the outcome of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), one needs to identify potentially modifiable factors associated with mortality. Methods The large observational study to understand the global impact of severe acute respiratory failure (LUNG SAFE) was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients with severe respiratory failure, conducted in the winter of 2014 in a convenience sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries across five continents. A pre-specified secondary aim was to examine the factors associated with outcome. Analyses were restricted to patients (93.1 %) fulfilling ARDS criteria on day 1–2 who received invasive mechanical ventilation. Results 2377 patients were included in the analysis. Potentially modifiable factors associated with increased hospital mortality in multivariable analyses include lower PEEP, higher peak inspiratory, plateau, and driving pressures, and increased respiratory rate. The impact of tidal volume on outcome was unclear. Having fewer ICU beds was also associated with higher hospital mortality. Non-modifiable factors associated with worsened outcome from ARDS included older age, active neoplasm, hematologic neoplasm, and chronic liver failure. Severity of illness indices including lower pH, lower PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, and higher non-pulmonary SOFA score were associated with poorer outcome. Of the 578 (24.3 %) patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures decision, 498 (86.0 %) died in hospital. Factors associated with increased likelihood of limitation of life-sustaining therapies or measures decision included older age, immunosuppression, neoplasia, lower pH and increased non-pulmonary SOFA scores. Conclusions Higher PEEP, lower peak, plateau, and driving pressures, and lower respiratory rate are associated with improved survival from ARDS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073.

Introduction Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are direct reports from patients about the status of their health condition without amendment or interpretation by others. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the tools used to measure PROs; they are usually validated questionnaires patients complete by self‐assessing their health status. Whilst the benefits of using PROs and PROMs to guide real‐time patient care are well established, they have not been adopted by many oncology institutions worldwide. This literature review aimed to examine the barriers associated with using PROs and PROMs in routine oncology care. Methods A literature search was conducted across EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL databases. Studies detailing barriers to routine PRO use for real‐time patient care were included; those focusing on PRO collection in the research setting were excluded. Results Of 1165 records captured, 14 studies informed this review. At the patient level, patient time, incapacity and difficulty using electronic devices to complete PROMs were prominent barriers. At the health professional level, major barriers included health professionals’ lack of time and knowledge to meaningfully interpret and integrate PRO data into their clinical practice and the inability for PRO data to be acted upon. Prominent barriers at the service level included difficulties integrating PROs and PROMs into clinical workflows and inadequate information technology (IT) infrastructures for easy PRO collection. Conclusion This review has outlined potential barriers to routine PRO use in the oncology setting. Such barriers should be considered when implementing PROs into routine clinical practice. Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are direct reports from patients about the status of their health condition without amendment or interpretation by others. This review article outlines potential barriers to routine PRO use in the oncology setting. Such barriers should be considered when implementing PROs into routine clinical practice.

Our ability to evaluate outcomes which genuinely reflect patients’ unmet needs, hopes and concerns is of pivotal importance. However, much current clinical research and practice falls short of this objective by selecting outcome measures which do not capture patient value to the fullest. In this Opinion, we discuss Patient-Centered Outcomes Measures (PCOMs), which have the potential to systematically incorporate patient perspectives to measure those outcomes that matter most to patients. We argue for greater multi-stakeholder collaboration to develop PCOMs, with rare disease patients and families at the center. Beyond advancing the science of patient input, PCOMs are powerful tools to translate care or observed treatment benefit into an ‘interpretable’ measure of patient benefit, and thereby help demonstrate clinical effectiveness. We propose mixed methods psychometric research as the best route to deliver fit-for-purpose PCOMs in rare diseases, as this methodology brings together qualitative and quantitative research methods in tandem with the explicit aim to efficiently utilise data from small samples. And, whether one opts to develop a brand-new PCOM or to select or adapt an existing outcome measure for use in a rare disease, the anchors remain the same: patients, their daily experience of the rare disease, their preferences, core concepts and values. Ultimately, existing value frameworks, registries, and outcomes-based contracts largely fall short of consistently measuring the full range of outcomes that matter to patients. We argue that greater use of PCOMs in rare diseases would enable a fast track to Patient-Centered Care.

PurposePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an increasingly popular tool to optimize care and bridge the gap between patient experience and clinician understanding. The aim of this review was to identify mechanisms through which PROs facilitate patient-clinician communication in the adult oncology population.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature using the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cab Direct, and CDSR. Studies included in this review reported on the outcomes of PRO use, used PROs as an intervention and not as a study outcome measurement tool, included cancer patients or survivors as study participants, and analyzed patient-clinician communication.ResultsWe identified 610 unique records, of which 43 publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Synthesis of the reviewed studies provided evidence of the usefulness of PROs in facilitating patient-clinician communication on a variety of topics. We identified mechanisms though which PROs influenced patient-clinician communication to include increasing symptom awareness, prompting discussion, streamlining consultations, and facilitating inter-professional communication. Barriers to PRO use in communication improvement include technical problems impeding its administration and completion, compliance issues due to lack of incentive or forgetfulness, and use of PROs that do not appropriately assess issues relevant to the patient. Facilitators include increased education on PRO use, using PRO tools that patients find more acceptable, and providing patient data summaries in an easily accessible format for clinicians.ConclusionsOur review suggests that PROs facilitate patient-clinician communication through various mechanisms that could perhaps contribute to improvements in symptom management and survival. The impact of PROs on clinical outcomes, however, remains poorly studied.

PurposeIn current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs).MethodsA systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs.ResultsAfter screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed.ConclusionThis review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.

Background Content validity is the most important measurement property of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the most challenging to assess. Our aims were to: (1) develop standards for evaluating the quality of PROM development; (2) update the original COSMIN standards for assessing the quality of content validity studies of PROMs; (3) develop criteria for what constitutes good content validity of PROMs, and (4) develop a rating system for summarizing the evidence on a PROM's content validity and grading the quality of the evidence in systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods An online 4-round Delphi study was performed among 159 experts from 21 countries. Panelists rated the degree to which they (dis)agreed to proposed standards, criteria, and rating issues on 5-point rating scales ('strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'), and provided arguments for their ratings. Results Discussion focused on sample size requirements, recording and field notes, transcribing cognitive interviews, and data coding. After four rounds, the required 67% consensus was reached on all standards, criteria, and rating issues. After pilot-testing, the steering committee made some final changes. Ten criteria for good content validity were defined regarding item relevance, appropriateness of response options and recall period, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the PROM. Discussion The consensus-based COSMIN methodology for content validity is more detailed, standardized, and transparent than earlier published guidelines, including the previous COSMIN standards. This methodology can contribute to the selection and use of high-quality PROMs in research and clinical practice.

Background Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure patients’ perspectives on health outcomes and are increasingly used in health care. To capture the patient's perspective, it is essential that patients are involved in PROM development Objective This article reviews in what ways and to what extent patients are involved in PROM development and whether patient involvement has increased over time. Search strategy Literature was searched in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register. Inclusion criteria Studies were included if they described a new PROM development. Data extraction Basic information and information regarding patient involvement in development phases was recorded. Main results A total of 189 studies, describing the development of 193 PROMs, were included. Most PROMs were meant for chronic disease patients (n = 59) and measured quality of life (n = 28). In 25.9% of the PROM development studies, no patients were involved. Patients were mostly involved during item development (58.5%), closely followed by testing for comprehensibility (50.8%), while patient involvement in determining which outcome to measure was minimal (10.9%). Some patient involvement took place in the development of most PROMs, but in only 6.7% patients were involved in all aspects of the development. Patient involvement did not increase with time. Conclusions Although patient involvement in PROM development is essential to develop valid patient‐centred PROMs, patients are not always involved. When patients are involved, their level of involvement varies considerably. These variations suggest that further attention to building and/or disseminating consensus on requirements for patient involvement in PROM development is necessary.

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could play an important role in identifying patients’ needs and goals in clinical encounters, improving communication and decision-making with clinicians, while making care more patient-centred. Comprehensive evidence that PROMS are an effective intervention is lacking in single randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A systematic search was performed using controlled vocabulary related to the terms: clinical care setting and patient-reported outcome . English language studies were included if they were a RCT with a PROM as an intervention in a patient population. Included studies were analysed and their methodologic quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016034182). Results Of 4302 articles initially identified, 115 underwent full-text review resulting in 22 studies reporting on 25 comparisons. The majority of included studies were conducted in USA (11), among cancer patients (11), with adult participants only (20). Statistically significant and robust improvements were reported in the pre-specified outcomes of the process of care (2) and health care (3). Additionally, five, eight and three statistically significant but possibly non-robust findings were reported in the process of care, health and patient satisfaction outcomes, respectively. Conclusions Overall, studies that compared PROM to standard care either reported a positive effect or were not powered to find pre-specified differences. There is justification for the use of a PROM as part of standard care, but further adequately powered studies on their use in different contexts are necessary for a more comprehensive evidence base.

Background The features and survival of stage IV breast cancer patients with different metastatic sites are poorly understood. This study aims to examine the clinicopathological features and survival of stage IV breast cancer patients according to different metastatic sites. Methods Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, we restricted our study population to stage IV breast cancer patients diagnosed between 2010 to 2015. The clinicopathological features were examined by chi-square tests. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared among patients with different metastatic sites by the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable analyses were also performed using the Cox proportional hazard model to identify statistically significant prognostic factors. Results A total of 18,322 patients were identified for survival analysis. Bone-only metastasis accounted for 39.80% of patients, followed by multiple metastasis (33.07%), lung metastasis (10.94%), liver metastasis (7.34%), other metastasis (7.34%), and brain metastasis (1.51%). The Kaplan-Meier plots showed that patients with bone metastasis had the best survival, while patients with brain metastasis had the worst survival in both BCSS and OS ( p  < 0.001, for both). Multivariable analyses showed that age, race, marital status, grade, tumor subtype, tumor size, surgery of primary cancer, and a history of radiotherapy or chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors. Conclusion Stage IV breast cancer patients have different clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes according to different metastatic sites. Patients with bone metastasis have the best prognosis, and brain metastasis is the most aggressive subgroup.