The development and validation of a needs assessment tool for use with YOUng adult survivors of a CentrAl Nervous system tumor (YOU-CAN).

Background: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors of a central nervous system (CNS) tumor represent a vulnerable group who can experience: social isolation, low rates of employment, and achieving independence can be compromised, leading to poorer quality of life compared with survivors of other cancer types. The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate the validity of a needs assessment tool (NAT) for AYA survivors of a CNS tumor. Methods: Items generated using data from 29 qualitative studies and cognitive interviews (n = 8) produced NAT V1.1 (49 items). 128 of 316 eligible participants attending neuro-oncology clinics at 4 NHS sites between June 2022 and March 2023 completed the NAT V1.1 to allow for item reduction and refinement and to evaluate reliability and validity. A pilot study (n = 6) using YOU-CAN in routine follow-up concluded the study. Results: Hierarchical analysis and Rasch analysis identified 18- and 15-items for removal, respectively. YOU-CAN, comprised of the remaining 16 items, demonstrates excellent test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient, 0.901, n = 40) and sufficient correlation with the European Quality of Life questionnaire and Supportive Care Needs Survey (Pearson r = 0.433 and 0.590, respectively). Pilot testing showed YOU-CAN triggered discussions of unmet needs in consultations and highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary support. Conclusions: YOU-CAN is a valid and reliable instrument containing items related to concerns about physical and emotional health; family and relationships; self-acceptance; and independence. Future efforts should examine YOU-CAN's feasibility, and develop guidance for managing unmet needs. Routine use of YOU-CAN may improve the identification of otherwise undiscussed unmet needs and opportunities to deliver personalized support.

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a smartphone-based manikin to support pain self-reporting.

Introduction: Many people worldwide suffer from chronic pain. Improving our knowledge on chronic pain prevalence and management requires methods to collect pain self-reports in large populations. Smartphone-based tools could aid data collection by allowing people to use their own device, but the measurement properties of such tools are largely unknown. Objectives: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a smartphone-based manikin to support pain self-reporting. Methods: We recruited people with fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and/or osteoarthritis and access to a smartphone and the internet. Data collection included the Global Pain Scale at baseline and follow-up, and 30 daily pain drawings completed on a 2-dimensional, gender-neutral manikin. After deriving participants' pain extent from their manikin drawings, we evaluated convergent and discriminative validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness and assessed findings against internationally agreed criteria for good measurement properties. Results: We recruited 131 people; 104 were included in the full sample, submitting 2185 unique pain drawings. Manikin-derived pain extent had excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.94), moderate convergent validity (ρ, 0.46), and an ability to distinguish fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis from rheumatoid arthritis (F statistics, 30.41 and 14.36, respectively; P < 0.001). Responsiveness was poor (ρ, 0.2; P, 0.06) and did not meet the respective criterion for good measurement properties. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that smartphone-based manikins can be a reliable and valid method for pain self-reporting, but that further research is warranted to explore, enhance, and confirm the ability of such manikins to detect a change in pain over time.

Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adolescent and Young Adult Survivors of a Central Nervous System Tumor: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To identify and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for assessing survivorship-related concepts for adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Methods: We searched five electronic databases. Two researchers independently screened all titles for inclusion and used consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidance to grade the quality of evidence for each measurement property. Results: Four studies met eligibility criteria: single-item pain thermometer; single-item fatigue thermometer; 37-item pediatric functional assessment of cancer therapy-brain tumor survivors, measuring quality of life; and 12-item Perceived Barriers Scale to assess barriers to employment. The Perceived Barrier Scale showed high-quality evidence for internal consistency and moderate quality evidence for construct and structural validity. Evidence for the measurement properties of the other PROMs was low-to-moderate quality. Conclusion: We found one PROM with sufficient evidence for good measurement properties to support its use. This warrants development and evaluation of further PROMs to inform ongoing supportive care for this population. Implications for Cancer Survivors: The Perceived Barriers Scale is sufficiently validated and could be considered to guide support for AYA survivors of CNS tumors to achieve their employment goals.

Experiences and Unmet Needs of Adolescent and Young Adult Survivors of a Brain Tumor (Aged 15-39 Years): A Systematic Review and Meta-ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumors account for 15% of all adolescent and young adult cancers, and survivors are at risk of ongoing late effects that can severely impact their ability to reach independence. Despite follow-up initiatives advocating a personalized approach, survivors continue to experience ongoing sequelae. A better understanding of the survivorship experience is required to ensure services are able to deliver personalized support. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic search and meta-ethnography was to identify and synthesize qualitative studies to better understand the experiences, perspectives, and needs of adolescent and young adult brain tumor survivors. METHODS: Five databases were searched using predefined criteria, studies were independently screened by two researchers, and those meeting inclusion criteria were synthesized. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were synthesized, generating 2 main themes, each with subthemes: (1) individual factors impacting resilience, namely, positive coping styles, managing emotions, and family functioning, and (2) cancer-related factors that challenge the individual, namely, living with societal expectations and barriers to coping. CONCLUSION: The conceptual framework illustrates the challenges and resilience of survivors along the continuum from adolescence to adulthood, reflecting the needs of this age group in 1 model, despite it being a time of rapid growth. The lack of awareness of potential physical and emotional late effects challenges individual resilience, which is further challenged when significant milestones cannot be reached. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is a role for follow-up services to identify and address unmet needs, provide better information to equip survivors to manage late effects, and support families, particularly those who underwent more intensive treatment.

Fixing the Leaky Pipe: How to Improve the Uptake of Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Prognostic and Predictive Models in Cancer Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: This discussion paper outlines challenges and proposes solutions for successfully implementing prediction models that incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer practice. METHODS: We organized a full-day multidisciplinary meeting of people with expertise in cancer care delivery, PRO collection, PRO use in prediction modeling, computing, implementation, and decision science. The discussions presented here focused on identifying challenges to the development, implementation and use of prediction models incorporating PROs, and suggesting possible solutions. RESULTS: Specific challenges and solutions were identified across three broad areas. (1) Understanding decision making and implementation: necessitating multidisciplinary collaboration in the early stages and throughout; early stakeholder engagement to define the decision problem and ensure acceptability of PROs in prediction; understanding patient/clinician interpretation of PRO predictions and uncertainty to optimize prediction impact; striving for model integration into existing electronic health records; and early regulatory alignment. (2) Recognizing the limitations to PRO collection and their impact on prediction: incorporating validated, clinically important PROs to maximize model generalizability and clinical engagement; and minimizing missing PRO data (resulting from both structural digital exclusion and time-varying factors) to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities. (3) Statistical and modeling challenges: incorporating statistical methods to address missing data; ensuring predictive modeling recognizes complex causal relationships; and considering temporal and geographic recalibration so that model predictions reflect the relevant population. CONCLUSION: Developing and implementing PRO-based prediction models in cancer care requires extensive multidisciplinary working from the earliest stages, recognition of implementation challenges because of PRO collection and model presentation, and robust statistical methods to manage missing data, causality, and calibration. Prediction models incorporating PROs should be viewed as complex interventions, with their development and impact assessment carried out to reflect this.

Predictive model-based interventions to reduce outpatient no-shows: a rapid systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Outpatient no-shows have important implications for costs and the quality of care. Predictive models of no-shows could be used to target intervention delivery to reduce no-shows. We reviewed the effectiveness of predictive model-based interventions on outpatient no-shows, intervention costs, acceptability, and equity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rapid systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. We searched Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and Clinical Trial Registries on March 30, 2022 (updated on July 8, 2022). Two reviewers extracted outcome data and assessed the risk of bias using ROB 2, ROBINS-I, and confidence in the evidence using GRADE. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for the relationship between the intervention and no-show rates (primary outcome), compared with usual appointment scheduling. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. RESULTS: We included 7 RCTs and 1 non-RCT, in dermatology (n = 2), outpatient primary care (n = 2), endoscopy, oncology, mental health, pneumology, and an magnetic resonance imaging clinic. There was high certainty evidence that predictive model-based text message reminders reduced no-shows (1 RCT, median RR 0.91, interquartile range [IQR] 0.90, 0.92). There was moderate certainty evidence that predictive model-based phone call reminders (3 RCTs, median RR 0.61, IQR 0.49, 0.68) and patient navigators reduced no-shows (1 RCT, RR 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.46, 0.67). The effect of predictive model-based overbooking was uncertain. Limited information was reported on cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and equity. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Predictive modeling plus text message reminders, phone call reminders, and patient navigator calls are probably effective at reducing no-shows. Further research is needed on the comparative effectiveness of predictive model-based interventions addressed to patients at high risk of no-shows versus nontargeted interventions addressed to all patients.

Prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with non-small cell Lung Cancer: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to support clinical decision making in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, an overview of research into the prognostic value of PROMs is currently lacking. AIM: To explore to what extent, how, and how robustly the value of PROMs for prognostic prediction has been investigated in adults diagnosed with NSCLC. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus and Scopus for English-language articles published from 2011 to 2021 that report prognostic factor study, prognostic model development or validation study. Example data charting forms from the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group guided our data charting on study characteristics, PROMs as predictors, predicted outcomes, and statistical methods. Two reviewers independently charted the data and critically appraised studies using the QUality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for prognostic factor studies, and the risk of bias assessment section of the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic model studies. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,769 unique titles of which we included 31 studies, reporting the results of 33 unique analyses and models. Out of the 17 PROMs used for prediction, the EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (16/33); 12/33 analyses used PROM subdomain scores instead of the overall scores. PROMs data was mostly collected at baseline (24/33) and predominantly used to predict survival (32/33) but seldom other clinical outcomes (1/33). Almost all prognostic factor studies (26/27) had moderate to high risk of bias and all four prognostic model development studies had high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is an emerging body of research into the value of PROMs as a prognostic factor for survival in people with NSCLC but the methodological quality of this research is poor with significant bias. This warrants more robust studies into the prognostic value of PROMs, in particular for predicting outcomes other than survival. This will enable further development of PROM-based prediction models to support clinical decision making in NSCLC.

Using patient-generated health data in clinical practice: How timing influences its function in rheumatology outpatient consultations.

OBJECTIVE: Utilizing patient-generated health data (PGHD) in clinical consultations and informing clinical and shared decision-making processes has the potential to improve clinical practice but has proven challenging to implement. Looking at consultations between people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and rheumatologists, this study examines when and how daily PGHD was discussed in outpatient consultations. METHODS: We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of 17 audio-recorded research outpatient consultations using thematic and interactional approaches. RESULTS: Clinicians decided when to look at the PGHD and what symptoms to prioritise during the consultation. When PGHD was introduced early in consultations, it was usually used to invite patients to collaborate (elicit new information). When introduced later, PGHD was used to corroborate patient accounts and to convince the patient about proposed actions and treatments. Clinicians occasionally disregarded PGHD if it did not fit into their clinical assessment. CONCLUSION: The time that PGHD is introduced may influence how PGHD is used in consultations. Further research is needed to understand how best to empower patients to discuss PGHD. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Educating patients and clinicians about the importance of timing and strategies when using PGHD in consultations may help promote shared decision-making.

Remote symptom monitoring integrated into electronic health records: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: People with long-term conditions require serial clinical assessments. Digital patient-reported symptoms collected between visits can inform these, especially if integrated into electronic health records (EHRs) and clinical workflows. This systematic review identified and summarized EHR-integrated systems to remotely collect patient-reported symptoms and examined their anticipated and realized benefits in long-term conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Web of Science, and Embase. Inclusion criteria were symptom reporting systems in adults with long-term conditions; data integrated into the EHR; data collection outside of clinic; data used in clinical care. We synthesized data thematically. Benefits were assessed against a list of outcome indicators. We critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: We included 12 studies representing 10 systems. Seven were in oncology. Systems were technically and functionally heterogeneous, with the majority being fully integrated (data viewable in the EHR). Half of the systems enabled regular symptom tracking between visits. We identified 3 symptom report-guided clinical workflows: Consultation-only (data used during consultation, n = 5), alert-based (real-time alerts for providers, n = 4) and patient-initiated visits (n = 1). Few author-described anticipated benefits, primarily to improve communication and resultant health outcomes, were realized based on the study results, and were only supported by evidence from early-stage qualitative studies. Studies were primarily feasibility and pilot studies of acceptable quality. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: EHR-integrated remote symptom monitoring is possible, but there are few published efforts to inform development of these systems. Currently there is limited evidence that this improves care and outcomes, warranting future robust, quantitative studies of efficacy and effectiveness.

Potential prognostic factors for delayed healing of common, non-traumatic skin ulcers: A scoping review.

Healing of non-traumatic skin ulcers is often suboptimal. Prognostic tools that identify people at high risk of delayed healing within the context of routine ulcer assessments may improve this, but robust evidence on which factors to include is lacking. Therefore, we scoped the literature to identify which potentially prognostic factors may warrant future systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE and Embase to identify studies in English published between 1997 and 2017 that tested the association between healing of the three most common non-traumatic skin ulcers encountered by health care professionals (venous leg, diabetic foot, and pressure ulcers) and patient characteristics, ulcer characteristics, and results from clinical investigations. We included 42 studies that investigated factors which may be associated with the healing of venous leg ulcers (n = 17), diabetic foot ulcers (n = 15), and pressure ulcers (n = 10). Across ulcer types, ulcer characteristics were most commonly reported as potential prognostic factors for healing (n = 37), including the size of the ulcer area (n = 29) and ulcer duration at first assessment (n = 16). A total of 35 studies investigated the prognostic value of patient characteristics (n = 35), including age (n = 31), gender (n = 30), diabetes (n = 22), smoking status (n = 15), and history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (n = 13). Of these studies, 23 reported results from clinical investigations as potential prognostic factors, with the majority regarding vessel quality. Age, gender, diabetes, smoking status, history of DVT, ulcer area, and ulcer duration at time of first assessment warrant a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify their prognostic value for delayed ulcer healing.

Nephrologists' perceptions regarding dialysis withdrawal and palliative care in Europe: lessons from a European Renal Best Practice survey.

BACKGROUND: There is a variation in dialysis withdrawal rates, but reasons for this variation across European countries are largely unknown. We therefore surveyed nephrologists' perceptions of factors concerning dialysis withdrawal and palliative care and explored relationships between these perceptions and reports of whether withdrawal actually occurred in practice. METHODS: We developed a 33-item electronic survey, disseminated via an email blast to all European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) members. In our data analyses, we distinguished those respondents who reported occurrence from those reporting no dialysis withdrawal in their unit. With multilevel logistic regression, we investigated the association between respondents' characteristics and perceptions and whether they reported occurrence of dialysis withdrawal or not. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-eight nephrologists from 45 countries completed the questionnaire; 42% reported occurrence of withdrawal in their unit in the past year, and 56% perceived that stopping life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients was allowed. Few respondents reported presence in their unit of protocols on withdrawal decision making (7%) or palliative care (10%) or the common involvement of a geriatrician in withdrawal decisions (10%). The majority stated that palliative care had not been part of their core curriculum (74%) and that they had not recently attended continuous medical education sessions on this topic (73%). Respondents from Eastern and Southern Europe had a 42 and 40% lower probability, respectively, of reporting withdrawal compared with those from North European countries. Working in a public centre [odds ratio (OR), 2.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.36-4.25] and respondents' perception that stopping life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients was allowed (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.23-3.12), that withdrawal decisions were commonly shared between doctor and patient (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.26-3.08) and that palliative care was reimbursed (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.16-2.83) increased the odds of reporting occurrence of withdrawal. CONCLUSION: Reports of dialysis withdrawal occurrence varied between European countries. Occurrence reports were more likely if respondents worked in a public centre, if stopping life-prolonging treatments was perceived as allowed, if withdrawal decisions were considered shared between doctors and patients and if reimbursement of palliative care was believed to be in place. There is room for improvement regarding protocols on withdrawal and palliative care processes and regarding nephrologists' training and education on end-of-life care.

A survey on the methodological processes and policies of renal guideline groups as a first step to harmonize renal guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, several bodies produce renal guidelines, potentially leading to duplication of effort while other topics may remain uncovered. A collaborative work plan could improve efficiency and impact, but requires a common approved methodology. The aim of this study was to identify organizational and methodological similarities and differences among seven major renal guideline bodies to identify methodological barriers to a collaborative effort. METHODS: An electronic 62-item survey with questions based on the Institute of Medicine standards for guidelines was completed by representatives of seven major organizations producing renal guidelines: the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN), European Renal Best Practice (ERBP), Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome (KDIGO), Kidney Health Australia-Caring for Australians with Renal Insufficiency (KHA-CARI), Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI), Sociedad Latino-Americano de Nefrologia e Hipertension (SLANH) and United Kingdom Renal Association (UK-RA). RESULTS: Five of the seven groups conduct systematic searches for evidence, two include detailed critical appraisal and all use the GRADE framework. Five have public review of the guideline draft. Guidelines are updated as new evidence comes up in all, and/or after a specified time frame has passed (N = 3). Commentaries or position statements on guidelines published by other groups are produced by five, with the ADAPTE framework (N = 1) and the AGREEII (N = 2) used by some. Funding is from their parent organizations (N = 5) or directly from industry (N = 2). None allow funders to influence topic selection or guideline content. The budgets to develop a full guideline vary from $2000 to $500 000. Guideline development groups vary in size from <5 (N = 1) to 13-20 persons (N = 3). Three explicitly seek patient perspectives, for example, by involving patients in the scoping process, and four incorporate health economic considerations. All provide training in methodology for guideline development groups and six make their methods public. All try to avoid overlapping topics already planned or published by others. There is no common conflict of interest policy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is considerable commonality in methods and approaches in renal guideline development by the different organizations, although some procedural differences remain. As the financial and human resource costs of guideline production are high, a collaborative approach is required to maximize impact and develop a sustainable work plan. Coming to consensus on methods and procedures is the first step and appears feasible.

Influences of definition ambiguity on hospital performance indicator scores: examples from The Netherlands.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Reliable and unambiguously defined performance indicators are fundamental to objective and comparable measurements of hospitals' quality of care. In two separate case studies (intensive care and breast cancer care), we investigated if differences in definition interpretation of performance indicators affected the indicator scores. DESIGN: Information about possible definition interpretations was obtained by a short telephone survey and a Web survey. We quantified the interpretation differences using a patient-level dataset from a national clinical registry (Case I) and a hospital's local database (Case II). In Case II, there was additional textual information available about the patients' status, which was reviewed to get more insight into the origin of the differences. PARTICIPANTS: For Case I, we investigated 15 596 admissions of 33 intensive care units in 2009. Case II consisted of 144 admitted patients with a breast tumour surgically treated in one hospital in 2009. RESULTS: In both cases, hospitals reported different interpretations of the indicators, which lead to significant differences in the indicator values. Case II revealed that these differences could be explained by patient-related factors such as severe comorbidity and patients' individual preference in surgery date. CONCLUSIONS: With this article, we hope to increase the awareness on pitfalls regarding the indicator definitions and the quality of the underlying data. To enable objective and comparable measurements of hospitals' quality of care, organizations that request performance information should formalize the indicators they use, including standardization of all data elements of which the indicator is composed (procedures, diagnoses).

Effect of a multifaceted performance feedback strategy on length of stay compared with benchmark reports alone: a cluster randomized trial in intensive care*.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of applying a multifaceted activating performance feedback strategy on intensive care patient outcomes compared with passively receiving benchmark reports. DESIGN: The Information Feedback on Quality Indicators study was a cluster randomized trial, running from February 2009 to May 2011. SETTING: Thirty Dutch closed-format ICUs that participated in the national registry. Study duration per ICU was sixteen months. PATIENTS: We analyzed data on 25,552 admissions. Admissions after coronary artery bypass graft surgery were excluded. INTERVENTION: The intervention aimed to activate ICUs to undertake quality improvement initiatives by formalizing local responsibility for acting on performance feedback, and supporting them with increasing the impact of their improvement efforts. Therefore, intervention ICUs established a local, multidisciplinary quality improvement team. During one year, this team received two educational outreach visits, monthly reports to monitor performance over time, and extended, quarterly benchmark reports. Control ICUs only received four standard quarterly benchmark reports. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The extent to which the intervention was implemented in daily practice varied considerably among intervention ICUs: the average monthly time investment per quality improvement team member was 4.1 hours (SD, 2.3; range, 0.6-8.1); the average number of monthly meetings per quality improvement team was 5.7 (SD, 4.5; range, 0-12). ICU length of stay did not significantly reduce after 1 year in intervention units compared with controls (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.92-1.12]). Furthermore, the strategy had no statistically significant impact on any of the secondary measures (duration of mechanical ventilation, proportion of out-of-range glucose measurements, and all-cause hospital mortality). CONCLUSIONS: In the context of ICUs participating in a national registry, applying a multifaceted activating performance feedback strategy did not lead to better patient outcomes than only receiving periodical registry reports.