Relationship between reasons for intermittent missing patient-reported outcomes data and missing data mechanisms.

PURPOSE: Non-response (NR) to patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires may cause bias if not handled appropriately. Collecting reasons for NR is recommended, but how reasons for NR are related to missing data mechanisms remains unexplored. We aimed to explore this relationship for intermittent NRs. METHODS: Patients with multiple myeloma completed validated PRO questionnaires at enrolment and 12 follow-up time-points. NR was defined as non-completion of a follow-up assessment within seven days, which triggered contact with the patient, recording the reason for missingness and an invitation to complete the questionnaire (denoted "salvage response"). Mean differences between salvage and previous on-time scores were estimated for groups defined by reasons for NR using linear regression with clustered standard errors. Statistically significant mean differences larger than minimal important difference thresholds were interpreted as "missing not at random" (MNAR) mechanism (i.e. assumed to be related to declining health), and the remainder interpreted as aligned with "missing completely at random" (MCAR) mechanism (i.e. assumed unrelated to changes in health). RESULTS: Most (7228/7534 (96%)) follow-up questionnaires were completed; 11% (802/7534) were salvage responses. Mean salvage scores were compared to previous on-time scores by reason: those due to hospital admission, mental or physical reasons were worse in 10/22 PRO domains; those due to technical difficulties/procedural errors were no different in 21/22 PRO domains; and those due to overlooked/forgotten or other/unspecified reasons were no different in any domains. CONCLUSION: Intermittent NRs due to hospital admission, mental or physical reasons were aligned with MNAR mechanism for nearly half of PRO domains, while intermittent NRs due to technical difficulties/procedural errors or other/unspecified reasons generally were aligned with MCAR mechanism.

Relationship between survivorship care plans and unmet information needs, quality of life, satisfaction with care, and propensity to engage with, and attend, follow-up care.

BACKGROUND: The impact of survivorship care plans (SCPs) on the proximal and distal outcomes of adult and childhood cancer survivors, and parent proxies, is unclear. This study aimed to determine the relationship between SCP receipt and these outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of adult and childhood cancer survivors (and parent proxies for survivors aged younger than 16 years) across Australia and New Zealand was conducted. Multivariate regression models were fitted to measure the impact of SCP receipt on proximal (unmet information needs and propensity to engage with, and attend, cancer-related follow-up care) and distal outcomes (quality of life and satisfaction with cancer-related follow-up care) with control for cancer history and sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Of 1123 respondents, 499 were adult cancer survivors and 624 were childhood cancer survivors (including 222 parent proxies). We found that SCP receipt was predictive of greater attendance at, and awareness of, cancer-related follow-up care (adult: odds ratio [OR], 2.46; 95% CI, 1.18-5.12; OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.07-5.29; child/parent: OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.63-4.17; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.06-2.50; respectively). SCP receipt also predicted fewer unmet information needs related to "follow-up care required" and "possible late effects" (adult: OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.96; OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.64; child/parent: OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.72; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.85; respectively). In terms of distal outcomes, SCP receipt predicted a better global quality of life for adult cancer survivors (ß, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.01-7.93), proxy-reported health-related quality of life (ß, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.44-7.12), and satisfaction with follow-up care for childhood cancer survivors (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.64-5.23). CONCLUSIONS: Previous studies have shown little impact of SCPs on distal end points. Results suggest that SCPs may be beneficial to cancer survivors' proximal and distal outcomes.

Patient-Reported Bowel, Urinary, and Sexual Outcomes After Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection or Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: The Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Randomized Clinical Trial (ALaCart).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual functioning of ALaCaRT Trial participants randomized to open or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The primary endpoint, noninferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection adequacy, was not established. METHODS: Participants completed QLQ-CR29 at baseline, 3, and 12 months post-surgery. Additionally, women completed Rosen's Female Sexual Functioning Index (FSFI). Men completed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and QLQ-PR25. We compared the proportions of participants in each group who experienced moderate/severe symptoms/dysfunction at each time-point and compared mean difference scores from baseline to 12 months between groups. All analyses were intention-to-treat. Sexual functioning analyses included only the participants who expressed sexual interest at baseline. RESULTS: Baseline PRO compliance of 475 randomized participants was 88%. At 12 months, a lower proportion of open surgery participants experienced moderate-severe fecal incontinence and sore skin, compared to Laparoscopic participants, and a lower proportion of men randomized to open surgery experienced moderate-severe urinary symptoms. There were no differences at 3 months for bowel or urinary symptoms. Sexual functioning among sexually interested participants was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months; however, a lower proportion of women reported moderate to severe sexual dissatisfaction at 3 months in the open as compared to the laparoscopic group, (Rebecca.mercieca@sydney.edu.au., 95% CI 0.03-0.39). DISCUSSION: Despite the slightly lower proportions of open surgery participants self-reporting moderate-severe symptoms for 3 of 16 urinary/bowel domains, and lack of differences in sexual domains, it remains difficult to recommend one surgical approach over another for rectal resection.

Health-related quality of life of Australians during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: a comparison with pre-pandemic data and factors associated with poor outcomes.

PURPOSE: Compare the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of the Australian general population during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) with pre-pandemic data (2015-2016) and identify pandemic-related and demographic factors associated with poorer HRQL. METHODS: Participants were quota sampled from an online panel by four regions (defined by active COVID-19 case numbers); then by age and sex. Participants completed an online survey about their HRQL [EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and General Health Question (GHQ)], demographic characteristics, and the impact of the pandemic on daily life. HRQL scores were compared to a 2015-2016 reference sample using independent t-tests, adjusted for multiple testing. Associations between 22 pre-specified factors (pandemic-related and demographic) and 15 QLQ-C30 domains and GHQ, were assessed with multiple regressions. RESULTS: Most domains were statistically significantly worse for the 2020 sample (n = 1898) compared to the reference sample (n = 1979), except fatigue and pain. Differences were largest for the youngest group (18-29 years) for cognitive functioning, nausea, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties. Emotional functioning was worse for 2020 participants aged 18-59, but not for those 60 +. All models were statistically significant at p < .001; the most variance was explained for emotional functioning, QLQ-C30 global health/QOL, nausea/vomiting, GHQ, and financial difficulties. Generally, increased workload, negative COVID-19 impacts, COVID-19-related worries, and negative attitudes towards public health order compliance were associated with poorer HRQL outcomes. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Australians reported poorer HRQL relative to a pre-pandemic sample. Risk factors for poor HRQL outcomes included greater negative pandemic-related impacts, poorer compliance attitudes, and younger age. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR number is: ACTRN12621001240831. Web address of your trial: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12621001240831.aspx . Date submitted: 26/08/2021 2:56:53 PM. Date registered: 14/09/2021 9:40:31 AM. Registered by: Margaret-Ann Tait. Principal Investigator: Madeleine King.

Prognostic value of patient reported outcomes in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer: a systematic review.

To summarise the prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in advanced gastro-oesophageal (GO) cancer. We systematically searched multiple databases using search terms related to advanced GO cancer, PRO and prognosis. Studies examining the relationship between baseline PROs and prognosis were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data on study design, survival and associations between PROs and survival, in both univariable and multivariable analyses. QUIPS was used for quality assessment. From 3004 studies screened, seven studies were eligible, comprising PRO data from 2761 of 3408 (81%) participants. Median survival times ranged from 4.5 to 9.5 months. Among participants with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), physical functioning, social functioning and fatigue (QLQ-C30) were associated with overall survival (OS) in one univariable analysis. Among three studies of participants with adenocarcinoma, univariable analyses revealed associations between OS and global quality of life (QOL), physical functioning, role functioning and social functioning; two studies showed association with pain. There was an association between emotional functioning, fatigue, lack of mobility, lack of self-care, appetite loss/anorexia and OS in one study. One multivariable analysis among participants with oesophageal SCC showed physical and social functioning was associated with OS. Among participants with adenocarcinoma, multivariable analyses showed associations between OS and physical functioning/lack of mobility, appetite loss/anorexia (three studies), global QOL, role functioning/lack of self-care, pain (two studies) and social functioning (one study). Physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, anorexia and global QOL were associated with OS in advanced GO cancer.

Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews.

This review of reviews aimed to appraise the use of the CONSORT-PRO Extension as an evaluation tool for assessing the reporting of patient-reported outcome (PROs) in publications, and to describe the reporting of PRO research across reviews. We also outlined how variation in such evaluations impacts knowledge translation and may lead to potential misuse of the CONSORT-PRO Extension. We systematically searched Medline, Pubmed and CINAHL from 2013 to 2025 March 2021 for reviews of the completeness of reporting of PRO endpoints according to CONSORT-PRO criteria. Two reviewers extracted details of each review, the percentage of included studies that addressed each CONSORT-PRO item, and key recommendations from each review. Fourteen reviews met inclusion criteria, and only six of these used the full CONSORT-PRO checklist with minimal justified modifications. The remaining eight studies made significant or unjustified adjustments to the CONSORT-PRO Extension. Review studies also varied in how they scored multi-component CONSORT-PRO items. CONSORT-PRO items were often unreported in trial reports, and certain CONSORT-PRO items were reported less often than others. The reporting of statistical approaches to dealing with missing PRO data were poor in RCTs included in all 14 review articles. Studies reviewing PRO publications often omitted recommended CONSORT-PRO items from their evaluations, which may cause confusion among readers regarding how best to report their PRO research according to the CONSORT-PRO extension. Many trials published since CONSORT-PRO's release did not report recommended CONSORT-PRO items, which may lead to misinterpretation and consequently to research waste.

Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops.

INTRODUCTION: Failure to incorporate key patient-reported outcome (PRO) content in trial protocols affects the quality and interpretability of the collected data, contributing to research waste. Our group developed evidence-based training specifically addressing PRO components of protocols. We aimed to assess whether 2-day educational workshops improved the PRO completeness of protocols against consensus-based minimum standards provided in the SPIRIT-PRO Extension in 2018. METHOD: Annual workshops were conducted 2011-2017. Participants were investigators/trialists from cancer clinical trials groups. Although developed before 2018, workshops covered 15/16 SPIRIT-PRO items. Participant feedback immediately post-workshop and, retrospectively, in November 2017 was summarised descriptively. Protocols were evaluated against SPIRIT-PRO by two independent raters for workshop protocols (developed post-workshop by participants) and control protocols (contemporaneous non-workshop protocols). SPIRIT-PRO items were assessed for completeness (0 = not addressed, 10 = fully addressed). Mann-Whitney U tests assessed whether workshop protocols scored higher than controls by item and overall. RESULTS: Participants (n = 107) evaluated the workshop positively. In 2017, 16/41 survey responders (39%) reported never applying in practice; barriers included role restrictions (14/41, 34%) and lack of time (5/41, 12%). SPIRIT-PRO overall scores did not differ between workshop (n = 13, median = 3.81/10, interquartile range = 3.24) and control protocols (n = 9, 3.51/10 (2.14)), (p = 0.35). Workshop protocols scored higher than controls on two items: 'specify PRO concepts/domains' (p = 0.05); 'methods for handling missing data' (p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Although participants were highly satisfied with these workshops, the completeness of PRO protocol content generally did not improve. Additional knowledge translation efforts are needed to assist protocol writers address SPIRIT-PRO guidance and avoid research waste that may eventuate from sub-optimal PRO protocol content.

The use of proxies and proxy-reported measures: a report of the international society for quality of life research (ISOQOL) proxy task force.

AIMS: Proxy reports are often used when patients are unable to self-report. It is unclear how proxy measures are currently in use in adult health care and research settings. We aimed to describe how proxy reports are used in these settings, including the use of measures developed specifically for proxy reporting in adult health populations. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, PsycINFO, PsycTESTS, CINAHL and EMBASE from database inception to February 2018. Search terms included a combination of terms for quality of life and health outcomes, proxy-reporters, and health condition terms. The data extracted included clinical context, the name of the proxy measure(s) used and other descriptive data. We determined whether the measures were developed specifically for proxy use or were existing measures adapted for proxy use. RESULTS: The database search identified 17,677 possible articles, from which 14,098 abstracts were reviewed. Of these, 11,763 were excluded and 2335 articles were reviewed in full, with 880 included for data extraction. The most common clinical settings were dementia (30%), geriatrics (15%) and cancer (13%). A majority of articles (51%) were paired studies with proxy and patient responses for the same person on the same measure. Most paired studies (77%) were concordance studies comparing patient and proxy responses on these measures. DISCUSSION: Most published research using proxies has focused on proxy-patient concordance. Relatively few measures used in research with proxies were specifically developed for proxy use. Future work is needed to examine the performance of measures specifically developed for proxies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO No. CRD42018103179.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines.

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. Evidence Review: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance. Findings: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived From the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) Quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaire. METHODS: We derived a descriptive system based on a subset of the 27-item FACT-G. Item selection was informed by psychometric analyses of existing FACT-G data (n = 6912) and by patient input (n = 82). We then conducted an online valuation survey, with participants recruited via an Australian general population online panel. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used, with attributes being the HRQL dimensions of the descriptive system and survival duration, and 16 choice-pairs per participant. Utility decrements were estimated with conditional logit and mixed logit modeling. RESULTS: Eight HRQL dimensions were included in the descriptive system: pain, fatigue, nausea, sleep, work, social support, sadness, and future health worry; each with 5 levels. Of 1737 panel members who accessed the valuation survey, 1644 (95%) completed 1 or more DCE choice-pairs and were included in analyses. Utility decrements were generally monotonic; within each dimension, poorer HRQL levels generally had larger utility decrements. The largest utility decrements were for the highest levels of pain (-0.40) and nausea (-0.28). The worst health state had a utility of -0.54, considerably worse than dead. CONCLUSIONS: A descriptive system and preference-based scoring approach were developed for the FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the FACT-G. The Australian value set is the first of a series of country-specific value sets planned that can facilitate cost-utility analyses based on items from the FACT-G and related FACIT questionnaires containing FACT-G items.

How is quality of life defined and assessed in published research?

PURPOSE: To ensure clarity in communication in the field of quality of life research, and meaningful use of 'quality of life' as a research outcome, requires two things: awareness that there is a range of conceptualisations and definitions of 'quality of life', and for any particular study, consistency between the way the term is defined and operationalised in that setting. We aimed to identify how frequently research articles described (HR)QOL as a construct of interest, how frequently they referred to "patient-reported outcome (measures)", which patient-reported outcome measures were used, and how (HR)QOL was defined. METHODS: We reviewed all Quality of Life Research articles published in 2017 and recorded whether they described health-related quality of life or quality of life as constructs of interest, and/or mentioned the term(s) patient-reported outcome (measures). We recorded definitions of (HR)QOL stated and questionnaires used. We classified articles according to constructs assessed and instruments used, and examined whether articles citing the same definition used the same questionnaires. RESULTS: We reviewed 300 articles; 65% stated that (HR)QOL was a construct of interest, 27% mentioned patient-reported outcome (measures), and 20% mentioned neither. Fifty-one articles provided definitions of (HR)QOL, citing 66 sources, with 11 definitions cited more than once. PROMIS, SF, EQ-5D, and EORTC instruments were the most commonly used. The only definition and questionnaire consistently used together were the WHO definitions/instruments. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate considerable heterogeneity in the definition and operationalisation of (HR)QOL, between and within studies. This limits meaningful interpretation of (HR)QOL scores and complicates literature searches. Investigators should define constructs and select instruments aligned with their definitions.

Survivorship Care Plans in Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Care Plan Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine recommends that survivorship care plans (SCPs) be included in cancer survivorship care. Our meta-analysis compares patient-reported outcomes between SCP and no SCP (control) conditions for cancer survivors. Our systematic review examines the feasibility of implementing SCPs from survivors' and health care professionals' perspectives and the impact of SCPs on health care professionals' knowledge and survivorship care provision. METHODS: We searched seven online databases (inception to April 22, 2018) for articles assessing SCP feasibility and health care professional outcomes. Randomized controlled trials comparing patient-reported outcomes for SCP recipients versus controls were eligible for the meta-analysis. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using pooled standardized mean differences for each patient-reported outcome. RESULTS: Eight articles were eligible for the meta-analysis (n = 1,286 survivors) and 50 for the systematic review (n = 18,949 survivors; n = 3,739 health care professionals). There were no significant differences between SCP recipients and controls at 6 months postintervention on self-reported cancer and survivorship knowledge, physical functioning, satisfaction with information provision, or self-efficacy or at 12 months on anxiety, cancer-specific distress, depression, or satisfaction with follow-up care. SCPs appear to be acceptable and potentially improve survivors' adherence to medical recommendations and health care professionals' knowledge of survivorship care and late effects. CONCLUSION: SCPs appear feasible but do not improve survivors' patient-reported outcomes. Research should ascertain whether this is due to SCP ineffectiveness, implementation issues, or inappropriate research design of comparative effectiveness studies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Several organizations recommend that cancer survivors receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) after their cancer treatment; however, the impact of SCPs on cancer survivors and health care professionals is unclear. This systematic review suggests that although SCPs appear to be feasible and may improve health care professionals' knowledge of late effects and survivorship care, there is no evidence that SCPs affect cancer survivors' patient-reported outcomes. In order to justify the ongoing implementation of SCPs, additional research should evaluate SCP implementation and the research design of comparative effectiveness studies. Discussion may also be needed regarding the possibility that SCPs are fundamentally ineffective.

The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire for cancer patients (QLQ-C30): Australian general population reference values.

OBJECTIVES: To generate Australian general population reference values for the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire for cancer patients (QLQ-C30); to compare Australian values with published EORTC general population reference values, and to explore associations between socio-demographic and health characteristics and QLQ-C30 subscale scores. DESIGN: Analysis of responses to cross-sectional, online survey (QLQ-C30), March 2015 - February 2016, and supplementary health-related and socio-demographic questions. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: 1979 people quota-sampled from a national online survey panel to be representative of the Australian general population by age and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean QLQ-C30 subscale scores, adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics and comorbid conditions, by sex and age group. RESULTS: Data for 1821 participants were analysed (92% completion rate); 924 (50.7%) were women. Higher psychological distress was associated with worse outcomes on all QLQ-C30 subscales. Better self-reported general health was associated with better global quality of life and better functioning (except cognitive functioning), and less fatigue, pain, dyspnoea and insomnia. Having arthritis or rheumatism was associated with poorer global quality of life, and poorer physical, role and social functioning, and with more fatigue, pain, insomnia, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties. Although differences between Australian QLQ-C30 subscale scores and EORTC general population values were clinically trivial, the Australian values are more accurate benchmarks for QLQ-C30 results from Australians with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our Australian QLQ-C30 reference values provide normative benchmarks that facilitate interpretation of data for Australians with cancer in terms of burden of disease and its treatment. In survivorship studies and studies without pre-disease baseline data, comparisons with reference values can indicate the extent to which people have returned to better levels of health.

U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D.

The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the widely used cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. It contains 10 dimensions (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea, bowel problems), each with four levels. The aim of this study was to provide U.K. general population utility weights for the QLU-C10D. A U.K. online panel was quota-sampled to align the sample to the general population proportions of sex and age (≥18 years). The online valuation survey included a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Each participant was asked to complete 16 choice-pairs, each comprising two QLU-C10D health states plus duration. DCE data were analysed using conditional logistic regression to generate utility weights. Data from 2,187 respondents who completed at least one choice set were included in the DCE analysis. The final U.K. QLU-C10D utility weights comprised decrements for each level of each health dimension. For nine of the 10 dimensions (all except appetite), the expected monotonic pattern was observed across levels: Utility decreased as severity increased. For the final model, consistent monotonicity was achieved by merging inconsistent adjacent levels for appetite. The largest utility decrements were associated with physical functioning and pain. The worst possible health state (the worst level of each dimension) is -0.083, which is considered slightly worse than being dead. The U.K.-specific utility weights will enable cost-utility analysis (CUA) for the economic evaluation of new oncology therapies and technologies in the United Kingdom, where CUA is commonly used to inform resource allocation.

Trials with proxy-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR).

AIMS: A proxy is someone other than a patient who reports a patient's outcomes as if they are the patient. Due to known discordance with patient reports, proxies are often not recommended in clinical trials; however, proxies may be needed in certain research contexts. We aimed to identify and describe trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) with proxy-reported endpoints. METHODS: ANZCTR was systematically searched from inception (2005) to 31 March 2017 for trials with proxy-reported endpoints. Primary and secondary endpoints for each trial retrieved by the search were individually coded (proxy-reported: yes/no), and trials with confirmed proxy-reported endpoints were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of 13,666 registered trials, 469 (3.4%) included a proxy-reported endpoint (867 individual proxy-reported endpoints in total: 62% family member proxy, 22% health professional). Proxy endpoint inclusion did not significantly increase over time (r = 0.18, p = 0.59). Mental health (11.5%), stroke (10.3%) and neurological (8.3%) trials had the highest proportion of trials using proxies. Of the 469 trials, 123 (26.2%) studies involved paediatric patients. DISCUSSION: Proxy-reported endpoints are included in a small but notable number of studies, which may indicate other types of outcomes are used for patients unable to self-report, or that these patients are under-researched.

Correction to: Trials with patient-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR).

In the original publication of the article, the sentence "The ANZCTR is the fifth largest trial registry internationally, with 21,330 registered trials as at January 2018 [5]" in the Introduction section was published incorrectly.

Trials with patient-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR).

AIMS: It is important to understand the number, types and regions of trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to appreciate how patient experiences have been considered in studies of health and interventions. Twenty-seven percent of trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (2007-2013) included PROs; however, a regional breakdown was not provided and no reviews have been conducted of the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). We aimed to identify trials registered with ANZCTR with PRO endpoints and describe their characteristics. METHODS: ANZCTR was systematically searched from inception (2005) to 31 March 2017 for trials with PRO endpoints. Search terms included PRO measures listed in Patient-Reported Outcomes Quality of Life Instrument Database and Grid-Enabled Measures, as well as generic PRO terms (e.g. "quality of life" (QOL)). Trial endpoints were individually coded using an established framework to identify trials with PROs for the analysis. RESULTS: Of 13,666 registered trials, 6168 (45.1%) included a PRO. The proportion of studies including PROs increased between 2006 and 2016 (r = 0.74, p = 0.009). Among the 6168 trials, there were 17,961 individual PRO endpoints, including symptoms/functional outcomes/condition-specific QOL (65.6%), generic QOL (13.2%), patient-reported experiences (9.9%), patient-reported behaviours (7.9%). Mental health was the most common category (99.8% included PROs), followed by physical medicine/rehabilitation (65.6%), musculoskeletal (63.5%), public health (63.1%), and cancer (54.2%). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest growing use of PROs in the assessment of health and interventions in ANZ. Our review identifies trial categories with limited patient-reported information and provides a basis for future work on the impact of PRO findings in clinical care.

A systematic review and development of a classification framework for factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Missing patient-reported outcome data can lead to biased results, to loss of power to detect between-treatment differences, and to research waste. Awareness of factors may help researchers reduce missing patient-reported outcome data through study design and trial processes. The aim was to construct a Classification Framework of factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data in the context of comparative studies. The first step in this process was informed by a systematic review. METHODS: Two databases (MEDLINE and CINAHL) were searched from inception to March 2015 for English articles. Inclusion criteria were (a) relevant to patient-reported outcomes, (b) discussed missing data or compliance in prospective medical studies, and (c) examined predictors or causes of missing data, including reasons identified in actual trial datasets and reported on cover sheets. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Discrepancies were discussed with the research team prior to finalizing the list of eligible papers. In completing the systematic review, four particular challenges to synthesizing the extracted information were identified. To address these challenges, operational principles were established by consensus to guide the development of the Classification Framework. RESULTS: A total of 6027 records were screened. In all, 100 papers were eligible and included in the review. Of these, 57% focused on cancer, 23% did not specify disease, and 20% reported for patients with a variety of non-cancer conditions. In total, 40% of the papers offered a descriptive analysis of possible factors associated with missing data, but some papers used other methods. In total, 663 excerpts of text (units), each describing a factor associated with missing patient-reported outcome data, were extracted verbatim. Redundant units were identified and sequestered. Similar units were grouped, and an iterative process of consensus among the investigators was used to reduce these units to a list of factors that met the guiding principles. The list was organized on a framework, using an iterative consensus-based process. The resultant Classification Framework is a summary of the factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data described in the literature. It consists of 5 components (instrument, participant, centre, staff, and study) and 46 categories, each with one or more sub-categories or examples. CONCLUSION: A systematic review of the literature revealed 46 unique categories of factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data, organized into 5 main component groups. The Classification Framework may assist researchers to improve the design of new randomized clinical trials and to implement procedures to reduce missing patient-reported outcome data. Further research using the Classification Framework to inform quantitative analyses of missing patient-reported outcome data in existing clinical trials and to inform qualitative inquiry of research staff is planned.

Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension.

Importance: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can provide valuable evidence to inform shared decision making, labeling claims, clinical guidelines, and health policy; however, the PRO content of clinical trial protocols is often suboptimal. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was published in 2013 and aims to improve the completeness of trial protocols by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed, but it does not provide PRO-specific guidance. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific protocol guidance (the SPIRIT-PRO Extension). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension was developed following the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development. This included (1) a systematic review of existing PRO-specific protocol guidance to generate a list of potential PRO-specific protocol items (published in 2014); (2) refinements to the list and removal of duplicate items by the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Protocol Checklist Taskforce; (3) an international stakeholder survey of clinical trial research personnel, PRO methodologists, health economists, psychometricians, patient advocates, funders, industry representatives, journal editors, policy makers, ethicists, and researchers responsible for evidence synthesis (distributed by 38 international partner organizations in October 2016); (4) an international Delphi exercise (n = 137 invited; October 2016 to February 2017); and (5) consensus meeting (n = 30 invited; May 2017). Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were informed of the results of the Delphi exercise and given data from structured reviews evaluating the PRO protocol content of 3 defined samples of trial protocols. Results: The systematic review identified 162 PRO-specific protocol recommendations from 54 sources. The ISOQOL Taskforce (n = 21) reduced this to 56 items, which were considered by 138 international stakeholder survey participants and 99 Delphi panelists. The final wording of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension was agreed on at a consensus meeting (n = 29 participants) and reviewed by external group of experts during a consultation period. Eleven extensions and 5 elaborations to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist were recommended for inclusion in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Extension items focused on PRO-specific issues relating to the trial rationale, objectives, eligibility criteria, concepts used to evaluate the intervention, time points for assessment, PRO instrument selection and measurement properties, data collection plan, translation to other languages, proxy completion, strategies to minimize missing data, and whether PRO data will be monitored during the study to inform clinical care. Conclusions and Relevance: The SPIRIT-PRO guidelines provide recommendations for items that should be addressed and included in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Improved design of clinical trials including PROs could help ensure high-quality data that may inform patient-centered care.

Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the uptake of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) statement; determined if use of CONSORT-PRO was associated with more complete reporting of PRO endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and identified the extent to which high-impact journals publishing RCTs with PRO endpoints endorse CONSORT-PRO. METHODS: CONSORT-PRO citations were identified by systematically searching Medline, EMBASE and Google from 2013 (year CONSORT-PRO released) to 17 December 2015. RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO (cases) were compared to a comparable control sample of RCTs in terms of adherence to CONSORT-PRO using t tests. General linear models assessed the relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and key, pre-specified variables. The 100 highest-impact journals that published RCTs with PRO endpoints (2014-2015) were identified via a systematic Medline search. Instructions for authors were reviewed to determine whether journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO. RESULTS: Total CONSORT-PRO scores ranged from 47 to 100% for cases and 25-96% for controls. Cases had significantly higher total CONSORT-PRO scores compared to controls: t = 2.64, p = 0.01. 'Citing CONSORT-PRO', 'journal endorsing CONSORT-PRO' and 'dedicated PRO paper' were significant predictors of higher CONSORT-PRO adherence score: R 2 = 0.48, p < 0.001. 11/100 top-ranked journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO in their instructions to authors, seven of these journals published RCTs included as cases in this study. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated improved PRO reporting associated with journal endorsement and author use of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Despite growing awareness, more work is needed to promote appropriate use of CONSORT-PRO to improve completeness of reporting; in particular, stronger journal endorsement of CONSORT-PRO.