Symptom burden and health-related quality of life in chronic kidney disease: A global systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The importance of patient-reported outcome measurement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) populations has been established. However, there remains a lack of research that has synthesised data around CKD-specific symptom and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) burden globally, to inform focused measurement of the most relevant patient-important information in a way that minimises patient burden. The aim of this review was to synthesise symptom prevalence/severity and HRQOL data across the following CKD clinical groups globally: (1) stage 1-5 and not on renal replacement therapy (RRT), (2) receiving dialysis, or (3) in receipt of a kidney transplant. METHODS AND FINDINGS: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for English-language cross-sectional/longitudinal studies reporting prevalence and/or severity of symptoms and/or HRQOL in CKD, published between January 2000 and September 2021, including adult patients with CKD, and measuring symptom prevalence/severity and/or HRQOL using a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool data, stratified by CKD group: not on RRT, receiving dialysis, or in receipt of a kidney transplant. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data, and an exploration of publication bias performed. The search identified 1,529 studies, of which 449, with 199,147 participants from 62 countries, were included in the analysis. Studies used 67 different symptom and HRQOL outcome measures, which provided data on 68 reported symptoms. Random effects meta-analyses highlighted the considerable symptom and HRQOL burden associated with CKD, with fatigue particularly prevalent, both in patients not on RRT (14 studies, 4,139 participants: 70%, 95% CI 60%-79%) and those receiving dialysis (21 studies, 2,943 participants: 70%, 95% CI 64%-76%). A number of symptoms were significantly (p < 0.05 after adjustment for multiple testing) less prevalent and/or less severe within the post-transplantation population, which may suggest attribution to CKD (fatigue, depression, itching, poor mobility, poor sleep, and dry mouth). Quality of life was commonly lower in patients on dialysis (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36] Mental Component Summary [MCS] 45.7 [95% CI 45.5-45.8]; SF-36 Physical Component Summary [PCS] 35.5 [95% CI 35.3-35.6]; 91 studies, 32,105 participants for MCS and PCS) than in other CKD populations (patients not on RRT: SF-36 MCS 66.6 [95% CI 66.5-66.6], p = 0.002; PCS 66.3 [95% CI 66.2-66.4], p = 0.002; 39 studies, 24,600 participants; transplant: MCS 50.0 [95% CI 49.9-50.1], p = 0.002; PCS 48.0 [95% CI 47.9-48.1], p = 0.002; 39 studies, 9,664 participants). Limitations of the analysis are the relatively few studies contributing to symptom severity estimates and inconsistent use of PROMs (different measures and time points) across the included literature, which hindered interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: The main findings highlight the considerable symptom and HRQOL burden associated with CKD. The synthesis provides a detailed overview of the symptom/HRQOL profile across clinical groups, which may support healthcare professionals when discussing, measuring, and managing the potential treatment burden associated with CKD. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020164737.

Past and Current Practice of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: In our systematic review, we assessed past and current practice of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in cancer randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We included RCTs with PRO endpoints evaluating conventional medical treatments, conducted in patients with the most prevalent solid tumor types (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, bladder, and gynecological cancers) and either published in 2004 to 2018 or registered on clinicaltrials.gov and initiated in 2014 to 2019. Frequency of use of individual PRO measures was assessed overall, over time, and by cancer site. RESULTS: Screening of 42 095 database records and 3425 registered trials identified 480 published and 537 registered trials meeting inclusion criteria. Among published trials, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) measures were used most often (54.8% of trials), followed by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measures (35.8%), the EQ-5D (10.2%), the SF-36 (7.3%), and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI; 2.5%). Among registered trials, the EORTC measures were used in 66.1% of the trials, followed by the FACIT measures (25.9%), the EQ-5D (23.1%), the SF-36 (4.8%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE; 2.2%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures (1.7%), and the MDASI measures (1.1%). CONCLUSION: The PRO measures most frequently used in RCTs identified in our review differ substantially in terms of content and domains, reflecting the ongoing debate among the scientific community, healthcare providers, and regulators on the type of PRO to be measured. Current findings may contribute to better informing the development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future cancer trials.

Patient and clinician opinions of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the management of patients with rare diseases: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases may be life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions. Patient care needs are often complex and challenging to coordinate and deliver effectively. Rare diseases and their clinical management may therefore substantially impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may complement clinical assessments by elucidating patients' perspectives on their health status and care priorities. This study explored the opinions of patients and clinicians on the use of PROMs in the management of patients with rare diseases in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 15 semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with four patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC); five renal transplant recipients; and six PSC doctors from University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB) NHS Foundation Trust. A focus group session was also conducted with 10 clinical staff members (doctors, nurses and other allied health professionals from UHB). The suitability and acceptability of the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) and the Short Form 12 (SF12) were assessed by patients with PSC and their doctors while the Paediatric quality of life inventory Transplant Module (PedsQL-TM) and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions (EQ. 5D) were evaluated by the renal transplant recipients and their doctors. The discussions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Coding of the transcripts was done using the Nvivo 11 Plus software. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify the main themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Four themes were identified, namely: (i) potential benefits of PROMs in the management of rare diseases; (ii) views on selected questionnaires; (iii) practical considerations for implementation; and (iv) potential facilitators and barriers of implementation. Patients and clinicians suggested that the use of ePROMs may facilitate patient-centred care by promoting patient-clinician communication, highlighting aspects of HRQOL that are important to patients and encouraging patient involvement in their care. They also felt that the disease-specific CLDQ and PedsQL-TM were more relevant than the generic SF12 and EQ-5D. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with rare diseases often experience impaired HRQOL. The use of an ePROM system may enhance the routine management of patients with rare diseases.

What to expect after open heart valve surgery? Changes in health-related quality of life.

PURPOSE: To (i) describe changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) pre-operatively, at discharge, and 4 weeks after discharge following open heart surgery, (ii) compare the performance of the EuroQol Questionnaire (EQ-5D 5L) and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) against an anchor-based approach, and to (iii) investigate the association between HRQoL and 180-day readmission. METHODS: A prospective, consecutive cohort (single-center study) of 291 patients completed the EQ-5D 5L and KCCQ pre-operatively, at discharge and 4 weeks post-discharge. Changes in HRQoL over time were evaluated, and the performance of the instruments was investigated. The association between HRQoL and readmission were investigated with Cox Proportional Hazard models. RESULTS: Scores of the EQ-5D Index and VAS decreased significantly from the pre-operative assessment to discharge and improved from discharge to 4 weeks after. The KCCQ scores significantly improved from baseline to 4 weeks after. Minimal clinically important improvements from before surgery to 4 weeks after were seen among 24% (EQ-5D Index), 45% (EQ-5D VAS), and 57% (KCCQ). More than one-third experienced worse HRQoL 1 month after discharge. Area under the curve (AUC) (performance of the instruments) demonstrated the following: EQ-5D Index AUC 0.622 (95% CI 0.540-0.704), VAS AUC 0.674 (95% CI 0.598-0.750), and KCCQ AUC 0.722 (95% CI 0.65-0.792). None of the HRQoL measurements were associated with 180-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that HRQoL measured with the EQ-5D is significantly worse at discharge compared to before surgery, but scores increases within the first month measured with the EQ-5D and the KCCQ. The EQ-5D and KCCQ have a moderate correlation with an anchor-based approach but were not associated with readmission.

Perceptions and experiences regarding the impact of race on the quality of healthcare in Southeast Brazil: a qualitative study.

Objective: To explore the impact of race on the quality of healthcare received by patients attending a primary care centre in Brazil.Design: This was a qualitative study consisting of 19 semi-structured interviews conducted on patients from six racial groups (as defined in Brazil as white, yellow, brown, black and indigenous and one self-identified 'other' group). The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.Results: Four main themes were identified during analysis; factors affecting the access to healthcare, experiences regarding quality of healthcare, discrimination in healthcare and deep-rooted societal discrimination, which were categorised into a number of sub-themes. Within these themes, interviewees reported (1) experiences of racism in society towards the black racial group, (2) one personal perception and two observations of racial discrimination in healthcare, (3) perceived racial discrimination due to healthcare professional behaviour and (4) other factors, such as delays in appointments and long waiting times in health facilities were felt to impact access to care.Conclusion: The findings suggest that racial discrimination exists in Brazilian society but its direct impact on healthcare access was felt to be less obvious. Instead, organisational level factors were felt to contribute to difficulty accessing care. Interviewees perceived that racial discrimination may affect the quality of care, particularly for those designated as 'black'. Socio-economic factors were felt to influence discrimination in healthcare. The findings can help inform further studies and educational initiatives to help address discrimination and access to healthcare in Brazil.

Care providers' and patients' attitudes toward using electronic-patient reported outcomes to support patients with traumatic brain injury: a qualitative study (PRiORiTy).

OBJECTIVES: To (a) identify residual symptoms and deficits resulting from a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and impact on patients' and their families' quality of life; (b) explore views and experience of care providers, researchers, patients, and carers of using PROMs; and (c) explore their attitudes toward reporting symptoms and impacts on an electronic platform. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with people with TBI and their carers; health-care professionals, researchers, and third sector staff members working with people with TBI. Results: Symptoms and long-term impacts of TBI included cognitive problems, difficulties functioning, anxiety, and depression. PROMs were seen as improving knowledge of residual symptoms and their impact post-TBI but not always accurately reflecting patients' residual problems. Challenges to completing PROMs were cognitive impairment and lack of insight into condition. Perceived advantages of an electronic platform included easy data collection; flexibility; improving workflow; and the ability to send/ receive feedback and reminders easily. Suggested features of an electronic platform included simple layout, lay language, short questions, few items on the screen, and capability to send/receive feedback and additional information. Conclusion: There is a demand for reporting symptoms and their impact electronically, providing the layout is kept simple and feedback from clinicians is provided.

Home-Based Exercise in Patients Awaiting Liver Transplantation: A Feasibility Study.

Frailty is associated with increased mortality both before and after liver transplantation (LT). There are no standardized exercise programs, in particular home-based exercise programs (HBEPs), for patients awaiting LT. The aim was to investigate the feasibility of such a program in patients awaiting LT. Patients were randomly selected from the Birmingham LT waiting list and provided with a 12-week HBEP, including average daily step (ADS) targets and twice-weekly resistance exercises. Feasibility was based on patient eligibility (≥66% of waiting list), target recruitment (≥90% of n = 20), safety (no related serious adverse events), and adherence (≥66% adherence to 6-week HBEP). Measures of aerobic (incremental shuttle walk test [ISWT], ADS), functional capacity (short physical performance battery test [SPPBT]), and health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) and hospital anxiety and depression score [HADS]) were taken at baseline and at 6 and 12 weeks. 18 patients (50% male; median age, 55 years) were recruited. All domains of the study feasibility criteria were met. ISWT improved after 6 weeks (50 m; P ≤ 0.01) and 12 weeks (210 m; P ≤ 0.01), despite withdrawal of the telephone health calls. Similarly, improvements were seen in ADS (2700/day; P ≤ 0.01) and the SPPBT (2.5; P = 0.02) after 12 weeks. There was no difference in HADS (median difference [MD] -3; P = 0.69), but EQ-5D-5L after 12 weeks (17.5%; P = 0.04). In conclusion, a 12-week HBEP, incorporating both easy-to-apply resistance and aerobic exercises, is safe and feasible in patients awaiting LT. Measures of aerobic and functional capacity demonstrate trends toward improvement that warrant further investigation in a randomized controlled trial.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Treated With Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Perspective.

There is increasing interest in the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into health care research and clinical practice for the benefit of patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis. In a research setting, PROs can be used as a patient-centered primary or secondary outcome in clinical studies. In routine care, PRO data may be used to support service delivery through benchmarking and audit or inform and enhance the care of the individual patient by improving patient-clinician communication. Despite evidence demonstrating the potential benefits of PROs and prioritization of these outcomes by patients, their use in kidney disease remains limited. Although there are significant methodological and operational challenges for the widespread integration of PROs, there is now consensus that this area should be at the forefront of clinical research and implementation science. We discuss the current use of PROs for patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis and identify a roadmap for increasing the evidence base and introducing PROs into mainstream clinical practice.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Management of Advanced CKD: A Qualitative Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can substantially affect patients' health-related quality of life. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) may capture symptoms and health-related quality of life and assist in the management of CKD. This study explored patient and clinician views on the use of a renal ePROM system. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 12 patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (non-dialysis dependent); 22 clinicians (6 CKD community nurses, 1 clinical psychologist, 10 nephrologists, 3 specialist registrars, and 2 renal surgeons) in the United Kingdom. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion during which patients received paper versions of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 and the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale-Renal to exemplify the type of content that could be included in an ePROM. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: 4 themes were identified: (1) general opinions of PROMs, (2) potential benefits and applications of an ePROM system, (3) practical considerations for the implementation of ePROMs, and (4) concerns, barriers, and facilitators. Patients were willing to complete ePROMs on a regular basis as part of their care despite clinician concerns about patient burden. Patients assessed the questionnaires favorably. Clinicians suggested that the extent of adoption of renal ePROM systems in routine clinical settings should be based on evidence of significant impact on patient outcomes. Clinicians were concerned that an ePROM system may raise patient expectations to unrealistic levels and expose clinicians to the risk for litigation. Patients and clinicians identified potential benefits and highlighted issues and concerns that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of the renal ePROM system. LIMITATIONS: Transferability of the findings may be limited because only English-speaking participants were recruited to the study. CONCLUSIONS: A renal ePROM system may play a supportive role in the routine clinical management of patients with advanced CKD if the concerns of clinicians and patients can be sufficiently addressed.

The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies. METHODS: Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial. RESULTS: Thirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals. CONCLUSIONS: PRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.

Remote follow-up using patient-reported outcome measures in patients with chronic kidney disease: the PROKID study - study protocol for a non-inferiority pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient care is steadily changing from hospital consultations to other platforms, such as phone consultation and online virtual clinics. It is prudent to maintain quality of care with such initiatives. Currently, patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have frequent scheduled visits, but it may be possible to optimise the frequency of hospital consultations using information from patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires filled in at home (PRO-based follow-up). This approach may provide a more individually tailored follow-up based on actual needs for clinical attention. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the quality of care, use of resources and patient outcomes associated with PRO-based follow-up in patients with CKD. METHODS: This study is a pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in outpatients with CKD (Grove BE et al., Qual Life Res 27: S143, 2018). Newly referred patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≤40 ml/min 1.73m2 will be randomised to either: 1. PRO-based remote follow-up 2. PRO-based telephone consultation 3. Usual outpatient follow-up (control group) In the two intervention groups, a diagnosis-specific PRO questionnaire completed by the patient at home will substitute for usual outpatient follow-up visits. The PRO questionnaire will in part be used as a screening tool to identify patients in need of outpatient contact and to identify focus areas. Responses from the questionnaire will be processed according to a disease-specific algorithm and assigned green, yellow or red status according to patients' needs. The primary outcome will be loss of renal function evaluated by eGFR. Secondary outcomes are 1. Clinical outcomes, including initiation of acute dialyses, hospitalisation and mortality, 2. Utilisation of healthcare resources and 3. PRO measures, primarily quality of life (Euroqol EQ-5D) and illness perception (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ). DISCUSSION: Benefits and possible drawbacks of the PRO-based follow-up will be evaluated. If PRO-based follow-up proves non-inferior to usual outpatient follow-up, a reorganisation of routine clinical practice in nephrology outpatient clinics may occur. Further, results may impact other patient groups with chronic conditions attending regular follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03847766 (Retrospectively registered on January 23, 2019).

Health Data Processes: A Framework for Analyzing and Discussing Efficient Use and Reuse of Health Data With a Focus on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

The collection and use of patient health data are central to any kind of activity in the health care system. These data may be produced during routine clinical processes or obtained directly from the patient using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Although efficiency and other reasons justify data availability for a range of potentially relevant uses, these data are nearly always collected for a single specific purpose. The health care literature reflects this narrow scope, and there is limited literature on the joint use of health data for daily clinical use, clinical research, surveillance, and administrative purposes. The aim of this paper is to provide a framework for discussing the efficient use of health data with a specific focus on the role of PRO measures. PRO data may be used at an individual patient level to inform patient care or shared decision making and to tailor care to individual needs or group-level needs as a complement to health record data, such as that on mortality and readmission, in order to inform service delivery and measure the real-world effectiveness of treatment. PRO measures may be used either for their own sake, to provide valuable information from the patient perspective, or as a proxy for clinical data that would otherwise not be feasible to collect. We introduce a framework to analyze any health care activity that involves health data. The framework consists of four data processes (patient identification, data collection, data aggregation and data use), further structured into two dichotomous dimensions in each data process (level: group vs patient; timeframe: ad hoc vs systematic). This framework is used to analyze various health activities with respect to joint use of data, considering the technical, legal, organizational, and logistical challenges that characterize each data process. Finally, we propose a model for joint use of health data with data collected during follow-up as a base. Demands for health data will continue to increase, which will further add to the need for the concerted use and reuse of PRO data for parallel purposes. Repeated and uncoordinated PRO data collection for the same patient for different purposes results in misuse of resources for the patient and the health care system as well as reduced response rates owing to questionnaire fatigue. PRO data can be routinely collected both at the hospital (from inpatients as well as outpatients) and outside of hospital settings; in primary or social care settings; or in the patient's home, provided the health informatics infrastructure is in place. In the future, clinical settings are likely to be a prominent source of PRO data; however, we are also likely to see increased remote collection of PRO data by patients in their own home (telePRO). Data collection for research and quality surveillance will have to adapt to this circumstance and adopt complementary data capture methods that take advantage of the utility of PRO data collected during daily clinical practice. The European Union's regulation with respect to the protection of personal data-General Data Protection Regulation-imposes severe restrictions on the use of health data for parallel purposes, and steps should be taken to alleviate the consequences while still protecting personal data against misuse.

Patient-reported outcome measures used in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC) is a rare chronic, cholestatic liver condition in which patients can experience a range of debilitating symptoms. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) could provide a valuable insight into the impact of PSC on patient quality of life and symptoms. A previous review has been conducted on the quality of life instruments used in liver transplant recipients. However, there has been no comprehensive review evaluating PROM use or measurement properties in PSC patients' to-date. The aim of the systematic review was to: (a) To identify and categorise which PROMs are currently being used in research involving the PSC population (b) To investigate the measurement properties of PROMs used in PSC. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL, from inception to February 2018, was undertaken. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were identified, which included 36 different PROMs. Seven PROMs were generic, 10 disease-specific, 17 symptom-specific measures and 2 measures on dietary intake. The most common PROMs were the Short form-36 (SF-36) (n = 15) and Chronic liver disease questionnaire (CLDQ) (n = 6). Only three studies evaluated measurement properties, two studies evaluated the National Institute of Diabetes Digestive and Kidney Diseases Liver Transplant (NIDDK-QA) and one study evaluated the PSC PRO; however, according to the COSMIN guidelines, methodological quality was poor for the NIDDK-QA studies and fair for the PSC PRO study. CONCLUSION: A wide variety of PROMs have been used to assess health-related quality of life and symptom burden in patients with PSC; however only two measures (NIDDK-QA and PSC PRO) have been formally validated in this population. The newly developed PSC PRO requires further validation in PSC patients with diverse demographics, comorbidities and at different stages of disease; however this is a promising new measure with which to assess the impact of PSC on patient quality of life and symptoms.

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.

Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Two independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) 'primary research-related impact', (2) 'influence on policy making', (3) 'health and health systems impact', (4) 'health-related and societal impact', and (5) 'broader economic impact'. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research.

A patient-centred approach to measuring quality in kidney care: patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with symptoms that can significantly reduce the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients. Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) may assist with the evaluation of HRQOL and quality of care from the patient perspective. This review focuses on evidence from recent studies exploring the role of PROMs and PREMs in the measurement of quality in CKD care. RECENT FINDINGS: PROMs are increasingly used in CKD research as measures of clinical effectiveness, whereas the current use of PROMs in routine clinical settings and PREMs in all settings is more limited. Electronic PROMs may be sensitive enough to detect clinically relevant patient-reported outcomes changes. Patients on frequent shorter-hours daily haemodialysis may experience better HRQOL compared with those on conventional haemodialysis. PROM data may correlate significantly with clinical parameters. PREMs are being utilized by healthcare professionals to inform service improvements. SUMMARY: PROMs and PREMs may facilitate the measurement of quality in renal care and aid the tailoring of care to individual patients. PROMs may have a potential role as prognostic markers.

The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide the patient's perspective of the impact of treatment. Evidence suggests that PRO content of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) protocols is generally sub-optimal. This study aimed to describe and evaluate the PRO-specific content of ovarian cancer RCT protocols. METHODS: Published, phase III, ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified following a systematic search of Medline and Cochrane databases (Jan 2000 to Feb 2016). Corresponding RCT protocols were downloaded (if published) or obtained by contacting authors. Two investigators independently assessed adherence of PRO-specific content of included protocols to a checklist of 58 recommended PRO protocol items currently being developed by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. Discrepancies were resolved with a third investigator. RESULTS: Of 41 eligible trials identified, 26 protocols were assessed (developed 1995-2010). We were unable to obtain the remaining 15 protocols. Protocols addressed a mean of 28 % PRO checklist items (range 8-66 %). Fifteen (58 % of assessed protocols) provided a rationale for PRO assessment, 8 (31 %) described a PRO objective, 24 (92 %) included a PRO assessment schedule, but only 6 (23 %) justified timing of PRO assessments. Twelve protocols (46 %) provided staff data collection instructions, 4 (15 %) included plans for monitoring PRO compliance, and 16 (62 %) included a PRO analysis plan. CONCLUSIONS: On average, protocols addressed less than one-third of PRO protocol checklist items. In some cases, key guidance regarding PRO administration was lacking, which may lead to inconsistent and sub-optimal PRO methodology. Efforts are needed to improve PRO protocol content in cancer trials.

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the draft European Medicines Agency reflection paper on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies.

In 2014, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released for comment a draft reflection paper on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. A twelve-member International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) taskforce was convened to coordinate the ISOQOL response. Twenty-one ISOQOL members provided detailed comments and suggestions on the paper: 81 % from academia and 19 % from industry. Taskforce members consolidated and further refined these comments and shared the recommendations with the wider ISOQOL membership. A final response was submitted to the EMA in November 2014. The impending publication of the EMA reflection paper presents a valuable opportunity for ISOQOL to comment on the current direction of EMA PRO guidance and strategy. The EMA paper, although focused on cancer, could serve as a model for using PROs in other conditions, as it provides a useful update surrounding some of the design issues common to all trial research including PRO endpoints. However, we believe there are a number of additional areas in need of greater consideration. The purpose of this commentary is therefore to highlight the strengths of this timely and potentially useful document, but also to outline areas that may warrant further discussion.