Development and acceptability of PETS-Now, an electronic point-of-care tool to monitor treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a web-based tool for patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) to communicate concerns about treatment burden to their healthcare providers. METHODS: Patients and providers from primary-care clinics participated. We conducted focus groups to identify content for a prototype clinical tool to screen for treatment burden by reviewing domains and items from a previously validated measure, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS). Following review of the prototype, a quasi-experimental pilot study determined acceptability of using the tool in clinical practice. The study protocol was modified to accommodate limitations due to the Covid-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with MCC and 18 providers participated in focus groups to review existing PETS content. The pilot tool (named PETS-Now) consisted of eight domains (Living Healthy, Health Costs, Monitoring Health, Medicine, Personal Relationships, Getting Healthcare, Health Information, and Medical Equipment) with each domain represented by a checklist of potential concerns. Administrative burden was minimized by limiting patients to selection of one domain. To test acceptability, 17 primary-care providers first saw 92 patients under standard care (control) conditions followed by another 90 patients using the PETS-Now tool (intervention). Each treatment burden domain was selected at least once by patients in the intervention. No significant differences were observed in overall care quality between patients in the control and intervention conditions with mean care quality rated high in both groups (9.3 and 9.2, respectively, out of 10). There were no differences in provider impressions of patient encounters under the two conditions with providers reporting that patient concerns were addressed in 95% of the visits in both conditions. Most intervention group patients (94%) found that the PETS-Now was easy to use and helped focus the conversation with the provider on their biggest concern (98%). Most providers (81%) felt they had learned something new about the patient from the PETS-Now. CONCLUSION: The PETS-Now holds promise for quickly screening and monitoring treatment burden in people with MCC and may provide information for care planning. While acceptable to patients and clinicians, integration of information into the electronic medical record should be prioritized.

Effects of patient-reported outcome assessment order.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. METHODS: This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran-Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. RESULTS: A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach's alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. CONCLUSION: The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

Rethinking the patient: using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the changing dynamics of illness.

BACKGROUND: In this article we outline Burden of Treatment Theory, a new model of the relationship between sick people, their social networks, and healthcare services. Health services face the challenge of growing populations with long-term and life-limiting conditions, they have responded to this by delegating to sick people and their networks routine work aimed at managing symptoms, and at retarding - and sometimes preventing - disease progression. This is the new proactive work of patient-hood for which patients are increasingly accountable: founded on ideas about self-care, self-empowerment, and self-actualization, and on new technologies and treatment modalities which can be shifted from the clinic into the community. These place new demands on sick people, which they may experience as burdens of treatment. DISCUSSION: As the burdens accumulate some patients are overwhelmed, and the consequences are likely to be poor healthcare outcomes for individual patients, increasing strain on caregivers, and rising demand and costs of healthcare services. In the face of these challenges we need to better understand the resources that patients draw upon as they respond to the demands of both burdens of illness and burdens of treatment, and the ways that resources interact with healthcare utilization. SUMMARY: Burden of Treatment Theory is oriented to understanding how capacity for action interacts with the work that stems from healthcare. Burden of Treatment Theory is a structural model that focuses on the work that patients and their networks do. It thus helps us understand variations in healthcare utilization and adherence in different healthcare settings and clinical contexts.

Ensuring comprehensive assessment of urinary problems in prostate cancer through patient-physician concordance.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the concordance between clinicians and men diagnosed with prostate cancer on a clinician-derived pathophysiological classification of the following self-reported urinary complications: storage (irritative), voiding (obstructive), and leakage/incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen urology experts classified 37 urinary function questionnaire items into 3 primary conceptual dimensions (e.g., storage [irritative], voiding [obstructive] and urinary leakage/incontinence) that would best reflect each item's content. In addition, 218 patient participants provided responses to the 37 items. Using classifications by experts to develop the conceptual framework, the structure was tested using confirmatory factor analyses with patient data. RESULTS: Expert consensus was achieved in the classification of 31 out of 37 items. Using the 3-factor conceptual framework and patient data, the fit indices for the overall correlated factor model suggested an acceptable overall model fit. The analyses of the separate domains showed acceptable fit for the storage/irritative domain and the leaking/incontinence domain. The dimensionality of the voiding/obstructive domain was too difficult to estimate. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found items that conceptually and psychometrically support 2 constructs (leaking/incontinence and storage/irritative). The consistency of this support between the groups suggests a clinical relevance that is useful in treating patients. We have conceptual support for a third hypothesis (voiding/obstructive), although there were too few items to assess this psychometrically. Relative motivating factors of bother and urinary complaints were not addressed and remain an unmet need in this field.

Uncovering treatment burden as a key concept for stroke care: a systematic review of qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic disease may experience complicated management plans requiring significant personal investment. This has been termed 'treatment burden' and has been associated with unfavourable outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the qualitative literature on treatment burden in stroke from the patient perspective. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The search strategy centred on: stroke, treatment burden, patient experience, and qualitative methods. We searched: Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO. We tracked references, footnotes, and citations. Restrictions included: English language, date of publication January 2000 until February 2013. Two reviewers independently carried out the following: paper screening, data extraction, and data analysis. Data were analysed using framework synthesis, as informed by Normalization Process Theory. Sixty-nine papers were included. Treatment burden includes: (1) making sense of stroke management and planning care, (2) interacting with others, (3) enacting management strategies, and (4) reflecting on management. Health care is fragmented, with poor communication between patient and health care providers. Patients report inadequate information provision. Inpatient care is unsatisfactory, with a perceived lack of empathy from professionals and a shortage of stimulating activities on the ward. Discharge services are poorly coordinated, and accessing health and social care in the community is difficult. The study has potential limitations because it was restricted to studies published in English only and data from low-income countries were scarce. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke management is extremely demanding for patients, and treatment burden is influenced by micro and macro organisation of health services. Knowledge deficits mean patients are ill equipped to organise their care and develop coping strategies, making adherence less likely. There is a need to transform the approach to care provision so that services are configured to prioritise patient needs rather than those of health care systems.

Is patient assessment of asthma care delivery associated with publicly reported performance measures?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between patient assessment of healthcare delivery and publicly reported asthma performance measures. METHODS: We identified individuals 5-50 years old who had asthma quality measures reported to the Minnesota Community Measurement© (MCM©) by their clinic and sent them a postal survey which included within it the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness care (PACIC), a validated measure of patient perception of the quality of healthcare delivery. We performed a multivariable analysis to examine the association between PACIC scores and achievement of asthma care quality measures. RESULTS: The response rate for the ACS was 102/367 (28%); a non-response bias analysis revealed no differences between responders and non-responders for age, gender and asthma control. Most responders (73%) reported taking asthma medications daily and most (71%) had poorly controlled asthma. The PACIC score was not associated with any of the asthma quality measures based on the data reported to MCM© by the clinic. A higher PACIC score was, however, associated with having an asthma action plan based on patient-reported data in the ACS (p < 0.0001) but not with patient-reported asthma control or emergency department/hospitalizations for asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Patient assessment of high quality asthma care delivery was associated with patient self-report of having an asthma action plan but was not associated with any of the publicly reported asthma performance measures.

Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - methodological challenges and solutions.

BACKGROUND: Treatment burden can be defined as the self-care practices that patients with chronic illness must perform to respond to the requirements of their healthcare providers, as well as the impact that these practices have on patient functioning and well being. Increasing levels of treatment burden may lead to suboptimal adherence and negative outcomes. Systematic review of the qualitative literature is a useful method for exploring the patient experience of care, in this case the experience of treatment burden. There is no consensus on methods for qualitative systematic review. This paper describes the methodology used for qualitative systematic reviews of the treatment burdens identified in three different common chronic conditions, using stroke as our exemplar. METHODS: Qualitative studies in peer reviewed journals seeking to understand the patient experience of stroke management were sought. Limitations of English language and year of publication 2000 onwards were set. An exhaustive search strategy was employed, consisting of a scoping search, database searches (Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Medline & PsycINFO) and reference, footnote and citation searching. Papers were screened, data extracted, quality appraised and analysed by two individuals, with a third party for disagreements. Data analysis was carried out using a coding framework underpinned by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). RESULTS: A total of 4364 papers were identified, 54 were included in the review. Of these, 51 (94%) were retrieved from our database search. Methodological issues included: creating an appropriate search strategy; investigating a topic not previously conceptualised; sorting through irrelevant data within papers; the quality appraisal of qualitative research; and the use of NPT as a novel method of data analysis, shown to be a useful method for the purposes of this review. CONCLUSION: The creation of our search strategy may be of particular interest to other researchers carrying out synthesis of qualitative studies. Importantly, the successful use of NPT to inform a coding frame for data analysis involving qualitative data that describes processes relating to self management highlights the potential of a new method for analyses of qualitative data within systematic reviews.

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) is valid for monitoring quality of life in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). We assessed the validity of administering the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) at 12-month intervals over 3 years in a longitudinal study of 611 prospectively enrolled, newly diagnosed patients with NHL. We evaluated corrected item-total correlation and percent missing to identify items that may be less useful in certain NHL patient subgroups. The FACT-G subscales and total score demonstrated good internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and known-groups validity. Most scores also demonstrated good responsiveness to change. Questions that could be problematic included GE3 (losing hope) and GP2 (nausea) for patients in remission, and GP5 (bothered by side effects) for patients being observed. Overall, the FACT-G was a valid measure for monitoring QoL over time in patients with NHL. However, sensitivity analyses based on subscale scoring that excludes potentially problematic items may be warranted.

Development and description of measurement properties of an instrument to assess treatment burden among patients with multiple chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Patients experience an increasing treatment burden related to everything they do to take care of their health: visits to the doctor, medical tests, treatment management and lifestyle changes. This treatment burden could affect treatment adherence, quality of life and outcomes. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument for measuring treatment burden for patients with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS: Items were derived from a literature review and qualitative semistructured interviews with patients. The instrument was then validated in a sample of patients with chronic conditions recruited in hospitals and general practitioner clinics in France. Factor analysis was used to examine the questionnaire structure. Construct validity was studied by the relationships between the instrument's global score, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) scores and the complexity of treatment as assessed by patients and physicians. Agreement between patients and physicians was appraised. Reliability was determined by a test-retest method. RESULTS: A sample of 502 patients completed the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), which consisted of 7 items (2 of which had 4 subitems) defined after 22 interviews with patients. The questionnaire showed a unidimensional structure. The Cronbach's α was 0.89. The instrument's global score was negatively correlated with TSQM scores (rs = -0.41 to -0.53) and positively correlated with the complexity of treatment (rs = 0.16 to 0.40). Agreement between patients and physicians (n = 396) was weak (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.47)). Reliability of the retest (n = 211 patients) was 0.76 (0.67 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first valid and reliable instrument assessing the treatment burden for patients across any disease or treatment context. This instrument could help in the development of treatment strategies that are both efficient and acceptable for patients.

Meta-analysis provides evidence-based effect sizes for a cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire, the FACT-G.

OBJECTIVE: To compare Cohen's guidelines for small (0.2), medium (0.5), and large (0.8) effect sizes with empirical estimates for a cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life questionnaire (HRQOL), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). METHODS: Seventy-one papers satisfied inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Blinded to the HRQOL results, three "experts" (with expertise in interpreting the FACT-G questionnaire and managing cancer patients), predicted the relative magnitude of HRQOL mean differences. Size classes (small, medium, large) were defined in terms of relevance to clinical decision making. The experts worked independently and based their predictions on patient characteristics and clinical circumstances. Their judgments were linked with FACT-G results and inverse-variance-weighted mean effect sizes calculated for each size class. RESULTS: At least two experts were perfectly concordant and up to one was discordant by at most one size category for 833 of the mean differences; for these, weighted kappas were generally in the "substantial" range (0.60-0.79). Of these mean differences, 617 were cross-sectional; small, medium, and large mean effect sizes were physical well-being 0.42, 0.87, 1.6; functional well-being 0.37, 0.71, 1.6; emotional well-being 0.32, 0.40, no large differences; and social well-being 0.14, 0.23, no large differences. Two hundred and sixteen longitudinal mean differences yielded small and medium effect sizes: physical well-being 0.26, 0.34; functional well-being 0.14, 0.28; emotional well-being 0.27, 0.23; and social well-being 0.08, 0.01. There was virtually no evidence for large longitudinal effects. CONCLUSION: These results provide specific, evidence-based alternatives to Cohen's generic guidelines, for use in sample-size calculations for the FACT-G and interpretation of the clinical significance of effects measured with FACT-G.

Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy--lung symptom index-12 (FLSI-12).

We tested the reliability and validity of a brief symptom index for use with patients in the advanced stages of lung cancer. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy--Lung Symptom Index-12 (FLSI-12) is a brief self-report measure that combines seven items addressing symptoms common in advanced-stage lung cancer with five symptoms or concerns that are relevant to most people with advanced-stage cancer. The index was administered prospectively to 92 advanced-stage lung cancer patients beginning at the initiation of chemotherapy and for 12 consecutive weeks. Reliability, convergent and concurrent validities, and responsiveness to change were determined and a minimally important difference (MID) was estimated. The index had good internal consistency (all Cronbach's alpha's>0.70), moderate to high item-to-total correlations (93% rho's> or =0.30), and correlated highly with a measure of overall quality of life (rho's> or =0.50). Baseline scores differentiated patients with better versus worse clinical features (p's<.05). Prospective changes in index scores were sensitive to changes in performance status ratings (p's<.05). An MID of 3-4 points was estimated by combining guideline-, distribution-, and anchor-based methods. The results show that the FLSI-12 is a psychometrically sound measure and support its use as an endpoint in clinical trials of advanced-stage lung cancer.

Future trends in patient-reported outcomes assessment for patients with advanced-stage lung cancer receiving targeted therapy.

Recent advances in cancer cell biology have led to the development of therapeutic agents that target pathways critical to the development and progression of disease. These so-called "targeted therapies" might offer patients a more tolerable alternative to traditional systemic chemotherapy that often achieves therapeutic benefit at the cost of debilitating side effects. Several targeted agents have been recently tested in clinical trials of advanced-stage lung cancer. As interest in these therapies grows, an understanding of their impact on the patient's well-being will be important. Patient-reported outcome measures such as formal assessments of health-related quality of life and disease symptoms provide a useful means for addressing the impact of therapy from the perspective of the patient. We summarize the most commonly used measures of health-related quality of life in clinical trials of advanced-stage lung cancer. Although existing measurement systems do provide adequate coverage of many important patient-related outcome issues, the advent of targeted therapies in advanced-stage lung cancer does expose several measurement gaps. We highlight some of these gaps by reviewing a representative sample of recently conducted clinical trials of targeted lung cancer therapy and offer insight as to how these gaps can be filled. We also briefly discuss a set of issues unique to patients receiving targeted therapy (eg, perceptions of treatment efficacy, treatment compliance, patient satisfaction, and treatment convenience) and consider a few methodologic concerns unique to patients with advanced cancer.

Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy esophageal cancer subscale.

BACKGROUND: To develop and validate a quality of life subscale for patients with esophageal cancer to be used with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients with esophageal cancer treated with surgery alone or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery evaluating the validity, internal consistency, and responsiveness to change of the FACT-Esophageal (FACT-E) when comparing it with the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ 30) and esophageal (OES 24) as well as clinical factors. RESULTS: The FACT-E demonstrated very good convergent and divergent validity when compared with the EORTC QLQ30 and OES 24 and clinical variables. Internal consistency was also good with coefficient alpha > 0.70 for all subscales and individual items. Stability coefficients were > 0.80. Changes in clinical status were reflected in changes in FACT-E scores demonstrating responsiveness to change, particularly in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The FACT-E met or exceeded all standards for validity, providing an option to measure health-related quality of life for different treatment strategies for esophageal cancer.

Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Symptom Index (FBSI).

We assessed the reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the 6-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Symptom Index (FBSI) in a sample of 615 metastatic breast cancer patients. The FBSI is a brief, clinically relevant, and psychometrically sound instrument that can be used to measure symptoms in patients with breast cancer.

A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale.

OBJECTIVE: To determine distribution- and anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for four scores from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B): the breast cancer subscale (BCS), Trial Outcome Index (TOI), FACT-G (the general version), and FACT-B. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from a Phase III clinical trial in metastatic breast cancer (ECOG study 1193; n=739) and a prospective observational study of pain in metastatic breast cancer (n=129). One third and one half of the standard deviation and 1 standard error of measurement were used as distribution-based criteria. Clinical indicators used to determine anchor-based differences included ECOG performance status, current pain, and response to treatment. RESULTS: FACT-B scores were responsive to performance status and pain anchors, but not to treatment response. By combining the results of distribution- and anchor-based methods, MID estimates were obtained: BCS=2-3 points, TOI=5-6 points, FACT-G=5-6 points, and FACT-B=7-8 points. CONCLUSION: Distribution- and anchor-based estimates of the MID do show convergence. These estimates can be used in combination with other measures of efficacy to determine meaningful benefit and provide a basis for sample size estimation in clinical trials.

What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592.

To assess the impact of disease and treatment on patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we set out to determine a clinically meaningful change (CMC) on the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) and the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) questionnaire. We used data from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study 5592 (E5592), a randomized trial comparing three chemotherapeutic regimens in 599 advanced NSCLC patients. Patients completed the FACT-L at baseline (pretreatment), 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months. Comparing across baseline performance status (0 vs. 1), prior weight loss (<5% vs. > or = 5%), and primary disease symptoms (< or = 1 vs. >1), LCS and TOI score differences ranged from 2.4 to 3.6 and 6.5 to 9.2, respectively (all Ps <.001). Mean improvement in LCS score from baseline to 12 weeks was 2.4 points in patients who had responded to treatment versus 0.0 points in patients who had progressive disease. Twelve-week LCS change scores for patients progressing early were 3.1 points worse than those of patients progressing later (mean = -1.2 vs.1.9, respectively). Similarly, the average TOI change score from baseline to 12 weeks was -6.1 for patients who had progressive disease versus -0.8 points for patients who had responded to treatment. Twelve-week TOI change scores for patients progressing early (mean = -8.1) were 5.7 points worse than those of patients progressing later (mean = -8.1 vs. -2.4, respectively). Analyses assuming nonrandom missing data resulted in slightly larger differences. Clinically relevant change scores were estimated as two to three points for the LCS and five to seven points for the TOI, setting upper limits for minimal CMCs. These values were comparable to suggested distribution-based criteria of a minimally important difference. These results support use of a two to three point change in the LCS and five to six point change on the TOI of the FACT-L as a CMC, and offer practical direction for inclusion of important patient-based endpoints in lung cancer clinical trials.

Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales.

Magnitude differences in scores on a measure of quality of life that correspond to differences in function or clinical course are called clinically important differences (CIDs). Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to provide ranges of CIDs for five targeted scale scores of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) questionnaire. Three samples of cancer patients were used: Sample 1 included 50 patients participating in a validation study of the FACT-An; Sample 2 included 131 patients participating in a longitudinal study of chemotherapy-induced fatigue; sample 3 included 2,402 patients enrolled in a community-based clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of a treatment for anemia. Three clinical indicators (hemoglobin level; performance status; response to treatment) were used to determine anchor-based differences. One-half of the standard deviation and 1 standard error of measurement were used as distribution-based criteria. Analyses supported the following whole number estimates of a minimal CID for these five targeted scores: Fatigue Scale = 3.0; FACT-G total score = 4.0; FACT-An total score = 7.0; Trial Outcome Index-Fatigue = 5.0; and Trial Outcome Index-Anemia = 6.0. These estimates provide a basis for sample size estimation when planning for a clinical trial or other longitudinal study, when the purpose is to ensure detection of meaningful change over time. They can also be used in conjunction with more traditional clinical markers to assist investigators in determining treatment efficacy.