How to select and understand guidelines for patient-reported outcomes: a scoping review of existing guidance.

BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to understand patient health conditions better. Therefore, numerous PRO measures (questionnaires) and guidelines or guidance have been developed. However, it is challenging to select target guidance from among the many available guidance and to understand the chosen guidance. This study comprehensively collected the existing PRO guidance for clinical trials or studies and practices to support novice PRO users in academia, industry, clinical practice, and regulatory and reimbursement decision-making. METHODS: For the scoping review, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Books, WorldCat, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Bookshelf databases from 2009 to 2023. The eligibility criteria were PRO guidance for clinical trials, clinical practice, or application such as health technology assessment. Those guidance cover aspects such as quality of life (QOL), PRO, health-related QOL, health state utilities, psychometric requirements, implementation methods, analysis and interpretation, or clinical practice applications. After the systematic search, three researchers individually reviewed the collected data, and the reviewed articles and books were scrutinized using the same criteria. RESULTS: We collected the PRO guidance published in articles and books between 2009 and 2023. From the database searches, 1,455 articles and 387 books were identified, of which one book and 33 articles were finally selected. The collected PRO guidance was categorized into the adoption of PRO measures, design and reporting of trials or studies using PROs, implementation of PRO evaluation in clinical trials or studies or clinical practice, analysis and interpretation of PROs, and application of PRO evaluation. Based on this categorization, we suggest the following for novices: When selecting guidance, novices should clarify the "place" and "purpose" where the guidance will be used. Additionally, they should know that the terminology related to PRO and the scope and expectations of PROs vary by "places" and "purposes". CONCLUSIONS: From this scoping review of existing PRO guidance, we provided summaries and caveats to assist novices in selecting guidance that fits their purpose and understanding it.

Optimizing smartphone psychotherapy for depressive symptoms in patients with cancer: Multiphase optimization strategy using a decentralized multicenter randomized clinical trial (J-SUPPORT 2001 Study).

AIM: Patients with cancer experience various forms of psychological distress, including depressive symptoms, which can impact quality of life, elevate morbidity risk, and increase medical costs. Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy are effective for reducing depressive symptoms among patients with cancer, but most patients prefer psychotherapy. This study aimed to develop an efficient and effective smartphone psychotherapy component to address depressive symptom. METHODS: This was a decentralized, parallel-group, multicenter, open, individually randomized, fully factorial trial. Patients aged ≥20 years with cancer were randomized by the presence/absence of three cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) skills (behavioral activation [BA], assertiveness training [AT], and problem-solving [PS]) on a smartphone app. All participants received psychoeducation (PE). The primary outcome was change in the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) total score between baseline and week 8. Secondary outcomes included anxiety. RESULTS: In total, 359 participants were randomized. Primary outcome data at week 8 were obtained for 355 participants (99%). The week 8 PHQ-9 total score was significantly reduced from baseline for all participants by -1.41 points (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.89, -0.92), but between-group differences in change scores were not significant (BA: -0.04, 95% CI -0.75, 0.67; AT: -0.16, 95% CI -0.87, 0.55; PS: -0.19, 95% CI -0.90, 0.52). CONCLUSION: As the presence of any of the three intervention components did not contribute to a significant additive reduction of depressive symptoms, we cannot make evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of specific smartphone psychotherapy.

The development and analysis of a Japanese modern comprehensive clinical data management training program.

Background: Clinical data management (CDM) collects, integrates, and makes data available. It plays a vital role in clinical research. However, there are few opportunities for Japanese clinical data managers to learn about its systematic framework, particularly in academic research organizations. While Japanese-language CDM training exists, its effectiveness in a Japanese context requires clarification. Objectives: We aimed to develop an advanced program of instruction for professionals to understand CDM and to determine the effectiveness of the training program. Methods and results: We developed an advanced program including risk-based monitoring and the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium on a trial basis for clinical data managers to provide them with a comprehensive understanding of CDM. Fifty-two people attended the program and reported that they were highly satisfied with it. Conclusions: To provide comprehensive CDM training in Japan, it is imperative to continue improving the content and develop an advanced program. Due to the recent tightening of clinical research regulations and the development and dissemination of various systems for conducting clinical research, the competency-based educational program requires further development.

Shared decision-making support program for older patients with advanced cancer using a question prompt list and geriatric assessment: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with cancer are less likely to express their treatment preferences than younger patients. Question prompt lists (QPLs) facilitate communication between patients and physicians. Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended when older patients with cancer make treatment decisions. This study estimated the effect size of a shared decision-making (SDM) support program combining QPLs with GA in terms of patients' subjective evaluation of the SDM process for a future definitive randomized controlled trial. We also evaluated the number and quality of aging-related communication during consultations, and feasibility and acceptability of the study for exploratory purposes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a pilot study with randomized allocation and blind evaluation. Patients aged 65 years or older at the National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, scheduled to discuss the changes of their treatment, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the SDM support program or usual care. This program consisted of 30-60 min of face-to-face coaching, with QPLs and GA provided before the coaching. As the primary endpoint, the decisional conflict scores given by the patients immediately after the consultation were compared between the two groups. For the secondary endpoints, the number and quality of aging-related communications during the consultations were assessed by evaluators (blinded) using audio-recordings. Adherence, burden, and usefulness were assessed for evaluating feasibility and acceptability of the SDM support program. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled. All patients completed the GA questionnaire, for which 70% did not require any individual assistance. Answering the questionnaires took approximately 11 min. The decisional conflict scores were mean [standard deviation (SD)]: 19.3 [10.8] vs. 18.0 [11.1] (effect size: Cohen's d = 0.12) for the SDM support program and usual care groups, respectively. The number of aging-related communications during the consultation for the new treatment was higher in the SDM support program group than the usual care (mean [SD]: 3.3 [1.2] vs. 2.2 [1.5], effect size: cohen's d = 1.32). Patients felt that the SDM support program was useful but not burdensome or difficult. DISCUSSION: The SDM support program was considered useful and feasible for older patients and able to facilitate communication regarding aging-related concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol was registered on September 23, 2020, in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000041867).