A New Framework for Co-Creating Telehealth for Cancer Care with the Patient Community.

The increased use of telehealth in cancer care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has added to our knowledge and experience of the modality with benefits in terms of efficacy, cost, and patient and healthcare professional experience reported. However, telehealth has also been found not to be universally available to all patients with cancer, nor to be appropriate for every healthcare interaction; additionally, not all patients prefer it. Now that coronavirus disease restrictions have essentially ended and an opportunity to re-assess telehealth provision in cancer care presents, we offer a framework that aims to ensure that the needs and preferences of the patient community are included in the development of telehealth provision. Stakeholders in this process include patients, patient advocates, healthcare providers, healthcare services commissioners, managers, and policy makers. The framework outlines how patient advocates can work with other stakeholders as equal partners at all stages of telehealth service development. The patient advocate community has a unique understanding of the patient perspective as well as expertise in healthcare design and delivery. This enables advocates to contribute to shaping telehealth provision, from policy and guideline formulation to patient navigation. Appropriate resources, education and training may be needed for all stakeholders to support the development of an effective telehealth system. Together with other stakeholders, patient advocates can make an important contribution to optimizing appropriate patient-centred telehealth provision in cancer care.

Evaluating the Content Validity, Clarity, and Relevance of Two Patient-Reported Outcomes for Use With Adults With EGFR-Mutated NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: NSCLCs account for most lung cancers; approximately 30% involve a mutation in the EGFR gene. This study sought to identify one or more patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures relevant for use in clinical trials to assess symptoms and health-related quality of life in this population. METHODS: Patients with NSCLC from the United States, Europe, and Asia and including those with an exon 20 insertion mutation and other EGFR mutations participated in a combination of concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews to report symptoms and impacts of their NSCLC and provide feedback on the clarity and relevance of several PRO measures. RESULTS: A total of 30 individuals participated (mean age = 57 years, 87% female, 80% white). The most often reported symptoms included fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, and weight loss. Individuals with the exon 20 insertion mutation (n = 21) more frequently reported negative impacts on daily life, physical functioning, and social functioning but less frequently reported negative impacts to emotional functioning. The PROMIS Short-Form version 2.0-Physical Function 8c and the NSCLC Symptom Assessment Questionnaire were deemed clear, relevant, and easy to complete. The concepts identified during the concept elicitation portion of the interviews were mapped to the content of each PRO, and all items within both PROs were endorsed by at least 20% of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the content validity, clarity, and relevance of the PROMIS Short-Form version 2.0-Physical Function 8c and the NSCLC Symptom Assessment Questionnaire in a population with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Both would be appropriate for inclusion in future studies.

Including the patient voice in the development and implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials.

CONTEXT: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in parallel with clinical evidence to inform decisions made by industry, clinicians, regulators, health technology assessment bodies and other health-care decision-makers. In addition, PRO data can also guide shared decision making and individual patient choice. Yet, the quality of many PROs in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal and requires improvement to add value to health care and policy decision making. OBJECTIVE: To show how the integration of the patient and/or patient advocate at all stages of PRO development can help to realize the full potential of PROs. METHODS: We examined the literature to show that the patient voice is often absent from the planning and implementation of PROs in cancer clinical trials. Good practice examples from the literature were combined with guideline recommendations, training or educational resources, and our own experience to create detailed practical steps for the inclusion of patients and/or patient advocates throughout PRO development. RESULTS: Patient or patient advocates can play an active role in shaping PROs that are meaningful to the patient. They can contribute to content, choice of medium and implementation in a way that may support PRO completion and minimize missing data. Patients and their advocates can work to ensure PRO findings are disseminated appropriately in a way that is accessible to patients. CONCLUSION: This practical guidance aims to optimize PRO development and implementation in clinical trials, resulting in robust, relevant data that reflect the patient experience and that support decisions made by all stakeholders involved in research and health care.