Collaborating with cancer patients and informal caregivers in a European study on quality of life: protocol to embed patient and public involvement within the EUonQoL project.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become an essential part of health research. There is a need for genuine involvement in order to ensure that research is relevant to patients. This can then improve the quality, relevance, and impact of health research, while at the same time reducing wasted research and in doing so bringing science and society closer together. Despite the increasing attention for this involvement, it is not yet common practice to report on proposed activities. An article reporting planned PPI could provide guidance and inspiration for the wider academic community in future activities. Therefore, this current article aims to describe the way in which PPI principles are incorporated in the research project called "Quality of Life in Oncology: measuring what matters for cancer patients and survivors in Europe (EUonQoL)." This project aims to develop a new set of questionnaires to enable cancer patients to assess their quality of life, entitled the EUonQoL-Kit. METHODS: The first step is to recruit cancer patients and their informal caregivers as co-researchers in order to train them to collaborate with the researchers. Based on their skills and preferences, they are then assigned to several of the project's work packages. Their individual roles, tasks, and responsibilities regarding the work packages, to which they have been assigned, are evaluated and adapted when necessary. The impact of their involvement is evaluated by both the researchers and co-researchers. DISCUSSION: PPI is a complex and dynamic process. As such, the overall structure of the research may be defined while at the same time leaving room for certain aspects to be filled in later. Our research is, we believe, relevant as co-researcher involvement in such a large European project as EUonQoL is a new development.

The first decade of the Danish Palliative Care Database: improvements and ongoing challenges in the quality and use of specialised palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Danish Palliative Care Database comprises five quality indicators: (1) Contact with specialised palliative care (SPC) among referred patients, (2) Waiting time of less than 10 days, (3) Proportion of patients who died from (A) cancer or (B) non-cancer diseases, and had contact with SPC, (4) Proportion of patients completing the patient-reported outcome measure at baseline (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL), and (5) Proportion of patients discussed at a multidisciplinary conference. PURPOSE: To investigate changes in the quality indicators from 2010 until 2020 in cancer and non-cancer patients. Patients/material: Patients aged 18+ years who died from 2010 until 2020. METHOD: Register-based study with the Danish Palliative Care Database as the main data source. Indicator changes were reported as percentage fulfilment. RESULTS: From 2010 until 2020, the proportion of patients with non-cancer diseases in SPC increased slightly (2.5-7.2%). In 2019, fulfilment of the five indicators for cancer and non-cancer were: (1) 81% vs. 73%; (2) 73% vs. 68%; (3A) 50%; (3B) 2%; (4) 73% vs. 66%; (5) 73% vs. 65%. Whereas all other indicators improved, the proportion of patients waiting less than 10 days from referral to contact decreased. Differences between type of unit were found, mainly lower for hospice. INTERPRETATION: Most patients in SPC had cancer. All indicators except waiting time improved during the 10-year period. The establishment of the Danish Palliative Care Database may have contributed to the positive development; however, SPC in Denmark needs to be improved, especially regarding a reduction in waiting time and enhanced contact for non-cancer patients.

Acceptability and usefulness of the EORTC 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems' (WISP): a brief open-ended instrument for symptom assessment in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of open-ended questions supplementing static questionnaires with closed questions may facilitate the recognition of symptoms and toxicities. The open-ended 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems (WISP)' instrument permits patients to report additional symptoms/problems not covered by selected EORTC questionnaires. We evaluated the acceptability and usefulness of WISP with cancer patients receiving active and palliative care/treatment in Austria, Chile, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on validated instruments for cancer patients including open-ended questions and analyzing their responses. WISP was translated into eight languages and pilot tested. WISP translations were pre-tested together with EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-C15-PAL and relevant modules, followed by patient interviews to evaluate their understanding about WISP. Proportions were used to summarize patient responses obtained from interviews and WISP. RESULTS: From the seven instruments identified in the literature, only the free text collected from the PRO-CTAE has been analyzed previously. In our study, 161 cancer patients participated in the pre-testing and interviews (50% in active treatment). Qualitative interviews showed high acceptability of WISP. Among the 295 symptoms/problems reported using WISP, skin problems, sore mouth and bleeding were more prevalent in patients in active treatment, whereas numbness/tingling, dry mouth and existential problems were more prevalent in patients in palliative care/treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC WISP instrument was found to be acceptable and useful for symptom assessment in cancer patients. WISP improves the identification of symptoms/problems not assessed by cancer-generic questionnaires and therefore, we recommend its use alongside the EORTC questionnaires.

Symptoms and problems reported by patients with non-cancer diseases through open-ended questions in specialist palliative care: a national register-based study.

PURPOSE: Since 2010, a comprehensive symptom/problem (S/P) assessment has been carried out in Danish specialist palliative care using the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire and the open-ended "Write In three Symptoms/Problems" (WISP) instrument. On WISP patients can report up to three S/Ps not included in the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL. However, little is known about which S/Ps patients with non-cancer diseases report using WISP. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence and severity of S/Ps reported on WISP by non-cancer patients in specialist palliative care and compared these S/Ps with those previously reported by cancer patients. METHODS: This register-based study collected data from the Danish Palliative Care Database. We included adult patients with non-cancer diseases answering the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL at admittance to specialist palliative care between 2016 and 2021. WISP responses were qualitatively categorized, and their prevalence and severity calculated. RESULTS: Of the 2323 patients with non-cancer diseases answering the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, 812 (34.9%) reported at least one S/P using WISP. A total of 1340 S/Ps were reported on WISP, of which 56.7% were not included in the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL (i.e., were new). Edema, existential problems, dizziness, cough, and dysphagia were the most prevalent new S/Ps. Overall, 88.7% of the S/Ps were scored as moderate-severe. The prevalence of S/Ps reported on WISP did not significantly differ between cancer and non-cancer patients, except for existential problems, dysphagia, myoclonus, speaking problems, sweats, and vomiting. CONCLUSION: The similarities and differences in the prevalence of the most common S/Ps reported on WISP confirm that WISP improves symptom assessment regardless of patient diagnosis.

Development of standard computerised adaptive test (CAT) settings for the EORTC CAT Core.

AIMS: Computerised adaptive test (CAT) provides individualised patient reported outcome measurement while retaining direct comparability of scores across patients and studies. Optimal CAT measurement requires an appropriate CAT-setting, the set of criteria defining the CAT including start item, item selection criterion, and stop criterion. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) CAT Core allows for assessing the 14 functional and symptom domains covered by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. The aim was to present a general approach for selecting CAT-settings and to use this to develop a portfolio of standard settings for the EORTC CAT Core optimised for different purposes and populations. METHODS: Using simulations, the measurement properties of CATs of different length and precision were evaluated and compared allowing for identifying the most suitable settings. All CATs were initiated with the most informative QLQ-C30 item. For each domain two fixed-length and two fixed-precision standard CATs were selected focusing on efficiency (brief version) and precision (long), respectively. RESULTS: The brief fixed-length CATs included 3-5 items each while the long versions included 5-8 items. The fixed-precision CATs aimed for reliability of 0.65-0.95 (brief versions) and 0.85-0.98 (long versions), respectively. Median sample size savings using the CATs compared to the QLQ-C30 scales ranged 20%-31%, although savings varied considerably across the domains. CONCLUSION: The EORTC CAT Core standard settings simplify selection of relevant and appropriate CATs. The CATs prioritise either brevity and efficiency or precision, but all provide increased measurement precision and hence, reduced sample size requirements compared to the QLQ-C30 scales. The CATs may be used as they are or modified to accommodate specific requirements.