F@#$ pain! A mini-review of the hypoalgesic effects of swearing.

Swearing, or the use of taboo language, has been repeatedly shown to induce hypoalgesia. While reliable hypoalgesic effects have been observed across studies, the mechanisms by which swearing influences pain and the optimal dosage of swearing remain poorly understood. Plausible mechanistic rationale for swearing's impact on pain include sympathetic response, emotion, humor, distraction, aggression, state disinhibition, psychological flow, risky behavior, and self-confidence. It remains unknown how the intensity of the swear word, speech volume, frequency, or timing influences pain modulation. While the majority of evidence demonstrates the efficacy of swearing at attenuating acute pain responses, these studies have utilized healthy populations with controlled experiments in laboratory settings. Comparatively, less is known about how laboratory findings translate practically/clinically to diverse populations, various dosages, and different pain chronicities. A greater understanding of mechanistic underpinnings and practical implications are necessary to feasibly implement swearing as a therapeutic modality to combat pain. The purpose of the following mini-review is to provide an overview of the current evidence on swearing for the reduction of pain, speculate on plausible underlying mechanisms, and discuss the potential for optimization of swearing for real-world translation. Lastly, identifying knowledge gaps to aid in directing future research will be discussed.

High-density stable glasses formed on soft substrates.

Enabled by surface-mediated equilibration, physical vapour deposition can create high-density stable glasses comparable with liquid-quenched glasses aged for millions of years. Deposition is often performed at various rates and temperatures on rigid substrates to control the glass properties. Here we demonstrate that on soft, rubbery substrates, surface-mediated equilibration is enhanced up to 170 nm away from the interface, forming stable glasses with densities up to 2.5% higher than liquid-quenched glasses within 2.5 h of deposition. Gaining similar properties on rigid substrates would require 10 million times slower deposition, taking ~3,000 years. Controlling the modulus of the rubbery substrate provides control over the glass structure and density at constant deposition conditions. These results underscore the significance of substrate elasticity in manipulating the properties of the mobile surface layer and thus the glass structure and properties, allowing access to deeper states of the energy landscape without prohibitively slow deposition rates.

Using expletives to enhance therapeutic outcomes: A case report.

Background: Swearing deserves attention in the physical therapy setting due to its potential positive effects on pain, physical performance, and therapeutic alliance. The purpose of this case report is to describe the strategic use of swearing in the clinical setting. Case Presentation: A 44-year-old female completed an episode of physical therapy after undergoing patellofemoral arthroplasty. Swearing was formally included into the plan of care, and the patient swore out loud during the most challenging and painful interventions. Results: The patient reported that repeating a swear word was funny, distracted the patient, and made the patient feel more confident. The patient and physical therapist self-reported a strong therapeutic alliance. Conclusion: There is evidence repeating a swear word out loud can strengthen the therapeutic alliance, improve physical performance, and decrease pain. This is, to our knowledge, the first report of a patient swearing during an episode of physical therapy care.

Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study.

BACKGROUND: Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE). METHODS: The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback. RESULTS: The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar. CONCLUSIONS: By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

Commentary: Advocating for patient and public involvement and engagement in health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care. MAIN TEXT: The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) is a reporting guideline for authors publishing health economic evaluations. We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the update of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. This need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient organisations could use to support their members to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement to build the evidence base for practice and may provide some reassurance to the public that their voice has played a part in evidence development. The CHEERS 2022 guide for patient representatives and patient organisations aims to support that endeavour by enabling deliberative discussions among patient organisations and their members. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care. MAIN TEXT: We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the development of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about patient and public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support patient and public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. The need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient representatives and patient organisations could use as support to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement in order to build the evidence base for practice. The CHEERS 2022 guide aims to support patient representatives and patient organisations to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.

A PHYSICAL THERAPIST WHO SWEARS: A CASE SERIES.

Objective: Swearing deserves attention in the physical therapy setting due to its potential positive psychological, physiological, and social effects. The purpose of this case series is to describe 2 cases in which a physical therapist swears in the clinical setting and its effect on therapeutic alliance. Patients: Case 1 is a 19-year-old male treated for a hamstring strain, and case 2 is a 23-year-old male treated post-operatively for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The physical therapist utilized social swearing in the clinic with the goal of motivating the patient and enhancing the social connection with the patient, to improve therapeutic alliance. Results: The patient in case 1 reported a decrease in therapeutic alliance after the physical therapist began swearing during physical therapy treatments, whereas the patient in case 2 reported an increase in therapeutic alliance. Both patients disagreed that physical therapist swearing is unprofessional and disagreed that swearing is offensive, and both patients agreed physical therapists should be able to swear around their patients. Conclusion: Physical therapist swearing may have positive and negative influences in the clinic setting and may not be considered unprofessional. These are, to our knowledge, the first published cases of a physical therapist swearing in the clinical setting.

Adopting recommendations for implementing patient involvement in cancer research: a funder's approach.

BACKGROUND: The role of patients in cancer research is undergoing a significant evolution as all stakeholders seek to enhance the level of direct patient involvement in the design and development of clinical trials. However, there are significant hurdles that patients, patient advocates, laboratory researchers, clinical investigators, and funding institutions must overcome to implement relevant patient involvement in all aspects of biomedical research. By using innovative grant funding models, philanthropic organizations can lead the field in overcoming these challenges. Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research (RTFCCR), a private philanthropy that funds academic research, has developed a novel approach for requiring and supporting partnerships among grantees and patients in designing and conducting research projects. This paper presents a reflective case study of efforts to advance the field of patient involvement in clinical research. METHODS: The decision to focus on patient involvement stems from an expressed focus area established by the RTFCCR board of directors. In conducting this work, RTFCCR partnered with Patvocates, a patient advocacy and engagement network, to create a set of guiding documents and resources aimed at public and private health research funders within various national, international, and therapeutic settings. This effort included a landscape assessment, interviews with experts, and an iterative development process. RESULTS: To date, RTFCCR has completed and disseminated three guiding documents, one for funders, one for grant applicants, and one for patient advocates. These resources have already generated three major ongoing initiatives at RTFCCR: (1) inclusion of these recommendations in the foundation's funding guidelines; patient input to prioritization of research focus areas; and in topic selection for calls for proposals; (2) direct involvement of patient experts in the grant review process; and (3) a commitment to support high impact clinical research projects in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Moreover, the foundation has launched a partnership with the International Cancer Research Partnership, the global alliance of cancer research organizations. CONCLUSION: By using its grantmaking function and developing standardized approaches for implementation of patient involvement, RTFCCR is seeking to advance patient-centric cancer clinical research. This approach will continue to develop as it is implemented and shared with partners throughout the world.

The Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research (RTFCCR), a private philanthropy that funds academic research, has developed a novel approach for requiring and supporting partnerships among grantees (scientists) and patients in designing and conducting research projects.The decision to focus on patient involvement stems from an expressed focus area established by the RTFCCR board of directors. In conducting this work, RTFCCR partnered with Patvocates, a patient advocacy and engagement network. Patvocates conducted a landscape assessment, interviews with experts, and their collective experience as patient advocates. This work generated a set of guiding documents and resources. These resources are to help public and private health research funders to better understand current challenges and support scientists and patients through their funding mechanisms. Three guiding documents, one for funders, one for grant applicants, and one for patient advocates are now available for download at the RTFCCR website: https://www.risingtide-foundation.org/clinical-cancer-research/patient-engagement#start Delivering a paradigm change involves not only the introduction of additional requirements and rules, but also enhanced education of patients and investigators. By using its grantmaking function and developing standardized approaches for implementation of patient involvement, RTFCCR is seeking to advance patient-centric cancer clinical research.Development and implementation of consistent policies and procedures for the integration of the patients' view in the design and review of research proposals is needed for funders as well as for research institutes, both public and private.

Differential Efficacy From the Addition of Bortezomib to R-CHOP in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma According to the Molecular Subgroup in the REMoDL-B Study With a 5-Year Follow-Up.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The REMoDL-B phase III adaptive trial compared rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) versus R-CHOP + bortezomib (RB-CHOP) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), stratified by molecular subtype. Primary analysis at a median follow-up of 30 months found no effect of bortezomib on progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Retrospective analysis using a gene expression-based classifier identified a molecular high-grade (MHG) group with worse outcomes. We present an updated analysis for patients successfully classified by the gene expression profile (GEP). Eligible patients were age older than 18 years with untreated DLBCL, fit enough for full-dose chemotherapy, and with adequate biopsies for GEP. Of 1,077 patients registered, 801 were identified with Activated B-Cell (ABC), Germinal Center B-cell, or MHG lymphoma. At a median follow-up of 64 months, there was no overall benefit of bortezomib on PFS or OS (5-year PFS hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; P = .085; OS HR, 0.86; P = .32). However, improved PFS and OS were seen in ABC lymphomas after RB-CHOP: 5-year OS 67% with R-CHOP versus 80% with RB-CHOP (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.95; P = .032). Five-year PFS was higher in MHG lymphomas: 29% versus 55% (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.84). Patients with ABC and MHG DLBCL may benefit from the addition of bortezomib to R-CHOP in initial therapy.

Effect of swearing on strength: Disinhibition as a potential mediator.

Swearing fulfils positive functions, including benefitting pain relief and physical strength. Here we present two experiments assessing a possible psychological mechanism, increased state disinhibition, for the effect of swearing on physical strength. Two repeated measures experiments were carried out with sample sizes N = 56 and N = 118. Both included the measures of physical performance assessing, respectively, grip and arm strength, and both included the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) to measure risky behaviour. Experiment 2, which was pre-registered, additionally assessed flow, emotion including humour, distraction including novelty, self-confidence, and anxiety. Experiments 1 and 2 found that repeating a swear word benefitted physical strength and increased risky behaviour, but risky behaviour did not mediate the strength effect. Experiment 2 found that repeating a swear word increased flow, positive emotion, humour, distraction, and self-confidence. Humour mediated the effect of swearing on physical strength. Consistent effects of swearing on physical strength indicate that this is a reliable effect. Swearing influenced several constructs related to state disinhibition, including increased self-confidence. Humour appeared to mediate the effect of swearing on physical strength, consistent with a hot cognitions explanation of swearing-induced state disinhibition. However, as this mediation effect was part of an exploratory analysis, further pre-registered experimental research, including validated measures of humour, is required.

A randomised controlled trial of a digital intervention (Renewed) to support symptom management, wellbeing and quality of life in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer survivors following primary treatment have prolonged poor quality of life. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of a bespoke digital intervention to support cancer survivors. DESIGN: Pragmatic parallel open randomised trial. SETTING: UK general practices. METHODS: People having finished primary treatment (<= 10 years previously) for colo-rectal, breast or prostate cancers, with European-Organization-for-Research-and-Treatment-of-Cancer QLQ-C30 score <85, were randomised by online software to: 1)detailed 'generic' digital NHS support ('LiveWell';n=906), 2) a bespoke complex digital intervention ('Renewed';n=903) addressing symptom management, physical activity, diet, weight loss, distress, or 3) 'Renewed-with-support' (n=903): 'Renewed' with additional brief email and telephone support. RESULTS: Mixed linear regression provided estimates of the differences between each intervention group and generic advice: at 6 months (primary time point: n's respectively 806;749;705) all groups improved, with no significant between-group differences for EORTC QLQ-C30, but global health improved more in both intervention groups. By 12 months there were: small improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 for Renewed-with-support (versus generic advice: 1.42, 95% CIs 0.33-2.51); both groups improved global health (12 months: renewed: 3.06, 1.39-4.74; renewed-with-support: 2.78, 1.08-4.48), dyspnoea, constipation, and enablement, and lower NHS costs (generic advice £265: in comparison respectively £141 (153-128) and £77 (90-65) lower); and for Renewed-with-support improvement in several other symptom subscales. No harms were identified. CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors quality of life improved with detailed generic online support. Robustly developed bespoke digital support provides limited additional short term benefit, but additional longer term improvement in global health enablement and symptom management, with substantially lower NHS costs.

Robotic Redo Mitral Valve Replacement and Atrioventricular Groove Pseudoaneurysm Repair.

We report the use of robot-assisted right thoracotomy in the management of a patient who presented with acute-on-chronic congestive heart failure, associated with a contained atrioventricular dissection and 2 prior mitral valve replacements. Our patient had evidence of a contained rupture, as represented by preoperative cross-sectional imaging. The anatomic sequela from this was a ventricular pseudoaneurysm, which was likely survivable due to adhesions from prior operations buttressing the margins of the defect. Expansion of the pseudoaneurysm likely contributed to the dehiscence of the prosthesis. Our case illustrates an unprecedented resolution of a serious complication, managed effectively and efficiently by a robot-assisted procedure. With a successful outcome of totally endoscopic and robot-assisted repair, we demonstrate the versatility of minimally invasive techniques in addressing complicated anatomy as well as a surgical field scarred by multiple prior surgeries.

Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from a patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The collection of PROs in routine practice can facilitate monitoring of patient symptoms; identification of unmet needs; prioritisation and/or tailoring of treatment to the needs of individual patients and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. However, respondent burden needs to be carefully considered and addressed to avoid high rates of missing data and poor reporting of PRO results, which may lead to poor quality data for regulatory decision making and/or clinical care.

A review of gamified approaches to encouraging eco-driving.

Eco-driving is a style of driving that minimizes energy consumption, while gamification refers to the use of game techniques to motivate user engagement in non-game contexts. This paper comprises a literature review assessing applying gamification to encourage eco-driving. The Web of Science Core Collection and EBSCO Host platforms were searched in February 2022. Qualifying sources included peer review journal articles, conference proceedings papers, academic book chapters and dissertation reports. The final sample comprised 39 unique publications, of which 34 described gamification adjunct systems used during driving. Most were designed as smartphone apps, but some ran on bespoke in-car feedback displays. Alternatively, using game-based learning, 5 studies described videogames designed to encourage eco-driving. Popular gamification elements were: an eco-driving score; self-comparisons or comparisons with others via leader boards; rewards; challenges, missions or levels; and emotive feedback (e.g., emojis). One system aimed to discourage driving at busy times. While 13 studies assessed the efficacy of the various systems, these were generally of poor quality. This developing literature contains many good ideas for applying gamification to promote eco-driving. However, evidence for efficacy is largely absent and researchers are encouraged to continue to evaluate a wide range of gamification approaches to promote eco-driving.

Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which different people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difficult to collate and appraise data about the most effective ways to involve different people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives. This article outlines progress to date on STARDIT; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved. METHOD: STARDIT development is guided by participatory action research paradigms, and has been co-created with people from multiple disciplines and countries. Co-authors include cancer patients, people affected by rare diseases, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians and academic publishers. The co-authors also worked with Indigenous peoples from multiple countries and in partnership with an organisation working with Indigenous Australians. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Over 100 people from multiple disciplines and countries have been involved in co-designing STARDIT since 2019. STARDIT is the first open access web-based data-sharing system which standardises the way that information about initiatives is reported across diverse fields and disciplines, including information about which tasks were done by which stakeholders. STARDIT is designed to work with existing data standards. STARDIT data will be released into the public domain (CC0) and integrated into Wikidata; it works across multiple languages and is both human and machine readable. Reports can be updated throughout the lifetime of an initiative, from planning to evaluation, allowing anyone to be involved in reporting impacts and outcomes. STARDIT is the first system that enables sharing of standardised data about initiatives across disciplines. A working Beta version was publicly released in February 2021 (ScienceforAll.World/STARDIT). Subsequently, STARDIT reports have been created for peer-reviewed research in multiple journals and multiple research projects, demonstrating the usability. In addition, organisations including Cochrane and Australian Genomics have created prospective reports outlining planned initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems.

All major problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics, require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Such problems require evidence-informed collaborative methods, multidisciplinary research and interventions in which the people who are affected are involved in every stage. However, there is currently no standardised way to share information about initiatives and problem-solving across and between fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, education, media and international development. A multi-disciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts and data-users has been involved in co-creating STARDIT to help everyone in the world share, find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT is an open access data-sharing system to standardise the way that information about initiatives is reported, including information about which tasks were done by different people. Reports can be updated at all stages, from planning to evaluation, and can report impacts in many languages, using Wikidata. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data checked for quality. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. Among its main benefits, STARDIT offers those carrying out research and interventions access to standardised information which enables well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different methods. This article outlines progress to date; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Oncology Trials: Surveys of Key Stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug's tolerability in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT). We conducted surveys of international stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum to understand attitudes about patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in DFOT. METHODS: A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders, and regulators of DFOT was distributed via professional bodies examining experience using PROs, benefits/barriers, and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes. RESULTS: International survey: 112 responses from 15 September-30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%)]. Most trialists had no experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%), or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed that PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on the frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (71/103, 68.9%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. A total of 28 (49.1%) were willing to spend <15 min/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.5%) preferred to complete PROs online. 61 (54.5%) trialists and 57 (100%) consumers agreed that patient-reported adverse events should be used to inform dose-escalation decisions. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders reported minimal experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use. Guidelines are needed to standardize PRO selection, analysis, and reporting in DFOT.