Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review.

In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.

Evaluating Recall Periods for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Methods.

OBJECTIVES: The current guidance for selection of recall periods recommends considering the design of the study, nature of the condition, patient's burden and ability to recall, and intent of the outcome measure. Empirical study of the accuracy of recall periods is recommended; however, there is not consensus on how to quantitatively evaluate the consistency of results from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with different recall periods. We conducted a systematic review to describe quantitative methods for evaluating results obtained from PROMs with differing recall periods to lay the groundwork for establishing consensus. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and American Psychological Association PsycINFO for studies where participants are given the same health-related measure (eg, quality of life, well-being, functioning, and pain) with differing recall periods. RESULTS: A total of 7174 abstracts were screened. The 30 included studies reflected a wide range of domains, including pain, fatigue, and sexual behavior and function. The recall periods ranged from momentary to 6 months. The analytic approaches varied, including different methods for assessing relative agreement, absolute agreement, and for assessing combined relative and absolute agreement. CONCLUSIONS: We found variability in how PROM recall periods were evaluated, suggesting an opportunity for greater consensus on methodological approach. As a starting point, we provide recommendations for which methods are preferred for which contexts.

Expectations of preventative benefits and risk behaviors in a randomized trial evaluating oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis candidates.

When participants enrolled in an HIV prevention trial hold a preventive misconception (PM) - expectations that experimental interventions will confer protection from HIV infection - they may engage in behaviors that increase their risk of acquiring HIV. This can raise ethical concerns about whether those enrolled in the trial understand the nature of participation and their safety. Consequently, we systematically evaluated the prevalence of PM and its association with risk behaviors in a trial examining three candidate regimens for oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in which all participants received at least one antiretroviral agent. Overall, trial participants exhibited relatively high preventive expectations that may be associated with an increase in risk behaviors among men who have sex with men. In addition, we identified substantial site variability in PM that necessitates future research to uncover its source. This will allow appropriate measures to be taken to mitigate PM and help ensure that participants have an accurate understanding of the potential risks and benefits of trial participation throughout the course of a trial.

Facets of physical function assessed by patient-reported outcome measures in oncology research.

PURPOSE: The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has identified physical functioning (PF) as a core patient-reported outcome (PRO) in cancer clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to identify PF PRO measures (PROMs) in adult cancer populations and classify the PROMs by content covered (facets of PF) in each measure. METHODS: As part of the Patient Reports of Physical Functioning Study (PROPS) research program, we conducted a targeted literature review to identify PROMs that could be used in clinical trials to evaluate PF from the patient perspective. Next, we convened an advisory panel to conduct a modified, reactive, Delphi study to reach consensus on which PF facets are assessed by PROMs identified in the review. The panel engaged in a "card sort" activity to classify PROM items by PF facets. Consensus was reached when 80% of panel members agreed that at least one facet was being measured by each PROM item. RESULTS: The literature review identified 13 PROMs that met inclusion criteria. Eight facets of PF were identified for classification in the Delphi study: ability, completion, difficulty, limitation, quality, frequency, bother, and satisfaction. Through two rounds, the panel documented and classified conceptual approaches for each PRO item presented. The most prevalent PF facets were ability, difficulty, and limitation. CONCLUSION: Classifying PF PROMs by PF facets will promote more consistent communication regarding the aspects of PF represented in each PROM, helping researchers prioritize measures for inclusion in cancer clinical trials.

What facets of physical function are most important to adults diagnosed with cancer?

PURPOSE: Successful patient-focused drug development involves selecting and measuring outcomes in clinical trials that are important to patients. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration's definition of clinical benefit includes how patients feel, function, or survive. Patients are considered the experts in describing how they feel and function. In cancer trials, patient-reported measures of physical function provide insight into how patients function at baseline, benefit from the interventions being studied, and the impact of treatment side effects. We conducted a qualitative study with adults diagnosed with cancer to describe facets of physical function from their perspective and to identify which facets are most important to this patient population. METHODS: Using concept elicitation and cognitive interviewing techniques, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 72 adults ≥ 22 years of age with cancer who received treatment with an anticancer drug or biologic within six months of the interview. We selected participants using purposive sampling with the aim to elicit diverse experiences regarding how they may interpret and respond to questions related to physical function. Participants were presented with patient-reported outcome (PRO) items representative of PRO measures used in cancer and general populations. RESULTS: Five facets of how physical function relates to activities were defined from the patient perspective: ability, difficulty, limitation, satisfaction, and completion. More than half of the participants indicated that ability was the most important facet of physical function. The next most important were satisfaction (18.3%), limitation (14.1%), difficulty (5.6%), and completion (2.8%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that we must be more specific about the facets of physical function that we set out to assess when we use PRO measures to describe the patient experience. These results have implications for the specificity of physical function facets when measured in cancer clinical trials.

Prognostic Discordance Among Parents and Physicians Caring for Infants with Neurologic Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency, degree, and nature of prognostic discordance between parents and physicians caring for infants with neurologic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: In this observational cohort study, we enrolled parents and physicians caring for infants with neurologic conditions in advance of a family conference. Parent-physician dyads completed a postconference survey targeting expected neurologic outcomes across 3 domains (motor, speech, and cognition) using a 6-point scale. Prognostic discordance was defined as a difference of ≥2 response options and was considered moderate (difference of 2-3 response options) or high (difference of 4-5 response options). Responses were categorized as differences in belief and/or differences in understanding using an existing paradigm. RESULTS: Forty parent-physician dyads of 28 infants completed surveys. Parent-physician discordance about prognosis occurred in ≥1 domain in the majority of dyads (n = 28/40, 70%). Discordance was generally moderate in degree (n = 23/28, 82%) and occurred with similar frequency across all domains. Of parent-physician dyads with discordance, the majority contained a difference in understanding in at least 1 domain (n = 25/28, 89%), while a minority contained a difference of belief (n = 6/28, 21%). When discordance was present, parents were typically more optimistic in their predictions compared with physicians (n = 25/28, 89%). CONCLUSIONS: Differing perceptions about the prognosis of critically ill infants are common and due to differences in both understanding and belief. These findings can be used to develop targeted interventions to improve prognostic communication.

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Decision-Making: The Partners' Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) continues to rise despite no improvement in survival, an increased risk of surgical complications, and negative effects on quality of life. This study explored the experiences of the partners of women who undergo CPM. METHODS: This study was part of an investigation into the factors motivating women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer and low genetic risk to opt for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Participating women were asked for permission to invite their partners to take part in interviews. In-depth interviews with partners were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide. A thematic analysis of the data was performed RESULTS: Of 35 partners, all men, 15 agreed to be interviewed. Most perceived their role to be strong and logical. Some hoped their wives would choose a bilateral mastectomy. All felt strongly that the final decision was up to their partners. The partners often framed the decision for CPM as one of life or death. Thus, any aesthetic effects were unimportant by comparison. The male partners had difficulty grasping the physical and emotional changes inherent in mastectomy, which made communicating about sexuality and intimacy very challenging for the couples. In the early recovery period, some noted the stress of managing home life. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences of the male partners provide insight into how couples navigate complex treatment decision-making, both together and separately. There may be a benefit to including partners in pre- and post-surgical counseling to mitigate miscommunication regarding the expected oncologic and emotional outcomes related to CPM.

Do PRO Measures Function the Same Way for all Individuals With Heart Failure?

Women diagnosed with heart failure report worse quality of life than men on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. An inherent assumption of PRO measures in heart failure is that women and men interpret questions about quality of life the same way. If this is not the case, the risk then becomes that the PRO scores cannot be used for valid comparison or to combine outcomes by subgroups of the population. Inability to compare subgroups validly is a broad issue and has implications for clinical trials, and it also has specific and important implications for identifying and beginning to address health inequities. We describe this threat to validity (the psychometric term is differential item functioning), why it is so important in heart-failure outcomes, the research that has been conducted thus far in this area, the gaps that remain, and what we can do to avoid this threat to validity. PROs bring unique information to clinical decision making, and the validity of PRO measures is key to interpreting differences in heart failure outcomes.

Investigating gender-based differential item functioning on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) using qualitative content analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate potential gender-based differences in interpreting the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-23) and to explore if there are aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) not captured by the KCCQ-23 that are important to assess in men and/or women with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Patients ≥ 22 years of age with clinician-diagnosed HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% were recruited from two academic medical centers to participate in semi-structured concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. Enrollment was stratified by patient-identified gender (half women/half men). All interviews were conducted over the phone/web and audio recorded. Interviews were transcribed and descriptive qualitative content analysis was used to summarize findings overall and by gender. RESULTS: Twenty-five adults (56% women) diagnosed with HF participated. The average age was 67 years (range: 25-88). Women attributed a wider variety of symptoms to HF than men. Some participants had difficulty differentiating whether their experiences were due to HF, side effects of their medications, or age. We found very little evidence that participants interpreted KCCQ-23 items differently based on gender. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings indicate that interpretation of the KCCQ-23 items were similar in men and women. However, some modifications to items may improve clarity of interpretation for a wide range of patients.

A web-based personalized decision support tool for patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ: development, content evaluation, and usability testing.

PURPOSE: Patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) face trade-offs when deciding among different treatments, including surgery, radiation, and endocrine therapy. A less chosen option is active monitoring. While evidence from clinical trials is not yet available, observational studies show comparable results for active monitoring and immediate treatment on cancer outcomes in select subgroups of patients. We developed and tested a web-based decision support tool (DST) to help patients explore current knowledge about DCIS and make an informed choice. METHODS: The DST, an interactive web application, was informed by literature reviews and formative work with patients, breast surgeons, and health communication experts. We conducted iterative interviews to evaluate the DST content among women with and without a history of breast cancer, as well as breast cancer experts. For usability testing, we conducted an online survey among women with and without a history of breast cancer. RESULTS: For content evaluation, 5 women with and 10 women without a history of DCIS were interviewed. The sample included 11 White and 4 non-White women, with a mean age of 64 years. The expert sample consisted of 5 attendings and a physician assistant. The feedback was used to add, clarify, or reorganize information in the DST. For usability testing, 22 participants with a mean age of 61 years were recruited including 15 White and 7 Black women and 6 women with a history of DCIS. The mean usability score was 3.7 out of 5. Most participants (86%) found that the DST provided unbiased information about treatments. To improve usability, we reduced the per-page content and added navigation cues. CONCLUSION: Content and usability evaluation showed that the DST helps patients explore trade-offs of active monitoring and immediate treatment. By adopting a personalized approach, the tool will enable informed decisions aligned with patients' values and expectations.

Decisional Satisfaction, Regret, and Conflict Among Parents of Infants with Neurologic Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize decisional satisfaction, regret, and conflict among parents of critically ill infants with neurologic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective cohort study, we enrolled parents of infants with neurologic conditions in the intensive care unit (ICU). Hospital discharge surveys included the validated Family Satisfaction with the ICU (FS-ICU) decision making subscale, Decision Regret Scale (DRS), and Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). We defined high satisfaction with decision making as an FS-ICU score ≥75, high decisional regret/conflict as DRS/DCS score >25, and within-couple disagreement as a difference of at least 25 points between scores. RESULTS: We enrolled 61 parents of 40 infants (n = 40 mothers, n = 21 fathers); 35 mothers and 15 fathers completed surveys. Most mothers reported high satisfaction with decision making (27 of 35; 77%) and low decision regret (28 of 35; 80%); 40% (14 of 35) reported high decisional conflict. Mothers and fathers reported higher decisional conflict in the domains of uncertainty and values clarity compared with the domain of effective decision making (Bonferroni-corrected P < .05). There were no differences in decision outcomes between paired mothers and fathers; however, within any given couple, there were numerous instances of disagreement (7 of 15 for decision regret and 5 of 15 for decisional conflict). CONCLUSIONS: Many parents experience decisional conflict even if they ultimately have high satisfaction and low regret, underscoring the need for decision aids targeting uncertainty and values clarity. Couples frequently experience different levels of decisional regret and conflict.

Patient- and physician-reported pain after tyrosine kinase inhibitor discontinuation among patients with chronic myeloid leukemia.

For patients with optimally treated chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), discontinuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy can lead to treatment-free remission. In previous trials, TKI discontinuation has been associated with increased musculoskeletal pain in some patients ("withdrawal syndrome"), based on physician-reported adverse events (AE). Patient-reported pain has not been described. The Life After Stopping TKI study was a 14-site prospective, non-randomized clinical trial of TKI discontinuation. We defined increased pain after discontinuation as: (i) a physician-reported pain AE, (ii) a 2-level increase in self-reported musculoskeletal pain (4-level single item), or (iii) initiation of a medication for pain. We plotted the trajectory of patient-reported pain over time using a piecewise mixed-effects ordinal logistic model. Within 3 months of discontinuation, 35 of 172 patients (20.3%) had a physician-reported pain AE, 22 of 172 (12.8%) had an increase in self-reported pain, and 18 of 154 (11.7%) initiated a pain medication. Agreement among these measures was limited; overall, 60 of 172 patients (34.9%) had increased pain. Three patients (1.7%) restarted a TKI because of pain. The modelpredicted trajectory showed an increase in pain in the first 3 months followed by a decrease, returning to baseline levels by 6 months and further decreasing after that. This trajectory was similar among patients who did and did not restart TKI, suggesting that resuming a TKI for withdrawal syndrome may be necessary for some, but other approaches to manage pain should be tried so that patients can remain in treatment-free remission when possible.

Patients' Reactions to Letters Communicating Collateral Findings of Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a National Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Collateral findings in pragmatic clinical trials are findings that may have implications for patients' health but were not generated to address a trial's primary research questions. It is uncertain how best to communicate these collateral findings to patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine how reactions to a letter communicating collateral findings relate to who signed the letter, the type of finding, or whether the letter specified that the finding arose from a pragmatic clinical trial. RESEARCH DESIGN: Web-based survey experiment using a between-subjects design in which respondents were randomly assigned within education strata to view and respond to 1 of 16 hypothetical scenarios. SUBJECTS: Adults recruited from an online panel constructed from a probability sample of US-based postal addresses. MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the action the respondent would take next (i.e., contact a doctor immediately or something else) and the respondent's emotional reactions (i.e., all positive, all negative, mixed, or none). RESULTS: A total of 4080 respondents had analyzable data. Although some effects were statistically significant (P < .05), none exceeded a prespecified threshold for policy relevance (15 or more percentage points). Ratings of letter clarity and level of understanding were lower for letters that included a description of the clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Signatory and level of detail about collateral findings did not substantially affect people's intentions to take the recommended action of contacting their doctor. Deciding whether to include a description of the pragmatic clinical trial requires a trade-off between transparency and more difficulty understanding the contents of the letter.

Extension and Evaluation of the PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction Measures for Use in Adults Living With Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is a common symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS). Clinically meaningful and psychometrically sound measures of sexual function validated in people with MS are necessary to identify people with MS who experience problems with sexual function. AIM: To evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Sexual Function and Satisfaction (SexFS) v2.0 measure in people with MS and to extend the PROMIS SexFS Brief and Full Profiles to include additional aspects of sexual function relevant to people living with MS. METHODS: A convenience sample of MS clinicians and sexually active individuals with MS ranked relevance of 26 items that listed specific factors that interfere with sexual function. Rankings were used to select items to include in the modified SexFS for Multiple Sclerosis (SexFS-MS) profiles. Sex-FS Brief and Full profiles along with the top 22 ranked interfering factor items underwent cognitive interviews (CI) to assess whether the items were understandable and meaningful. OUTCOMES: The SexFS as originally published functioned well in people with MS after minor modifications. RESULTS: Twelve MS clinicians and 26 people with MS ranked items. The 10 highest ranked questions about factors that interfere with sexual function most relevant to people with MS were added to the SexFS-MS Brief profiles and 18 to the Full profiles. Ten men and 12 women with MS participated in CIs and found most items to be clear and meaningful. However, important changes were made to the profile instructions, some response sets, and to some items to improve clarity and function. New items to assess numbness and reasons why sexually active people choose at times not to engage in sexual activity were added. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Brief and Full profiles are freely available and are recommended for research and clinical practice that include people with MS. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This study is the first to provide validity evidence for the PROMIS SexFS in people living with MS. Though the PROMIS SexFS was tested in people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, only individuals who identified as heterosexual participated in this study. Results may not represent views of people with MS who identify as other sexual orientations who may have different concerns and priorities related to sexual function. CONCLUSION: This study extended the PROMIS SexFS Brief and Full profiles to create the SexFS-MS by adding items that measure most relevant issues related to sexual function in individuals living with MS. Amtmann D, Bamer AM, Salem R, et al. Extension and Evaluation of the PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction Measures for Use in Adults Living With Multiple Sclerosis. J Sex Med 2022;19:719-728.

Comparing clinical bladder diaries and recalled patient reports for measuring lower urinary tract symptoms in the symptoms of Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Research Network (LURN).

PURPOSE: Bladder diaries are a key source of information about lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS); however, many patients do not complete them as instructed. Questionnaire-based patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are another option for reporting LUTS but may have recall bias. We assessed the strength of the associations between PROMs and a 3-day bladder diary. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Symptomatic adults from 6 tertiary care sites completed a 3-day paper bladder diary and 3-, 7-, and 30-day electronic PROMs. We assessed the linear associations between mapped pairs of diary variables and responses to PROM items using biserial and polyserial correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of 290 enrolled participants, 175 (60%) completed the bladder diary as instructed and at least one corresponding PROM. Linear associations were strongest between the diary and 3-day recall of daytime frequency (r = 0.75) and nighttime frequency (r = 0.69), followed by voids with urgency sensations (r = 0.62), and an item reporting any incontinence (r = 0.56). Linear associations between bladder diary and specific incontinence variables (e.g., stress, urgency) were low to negligible (ranging from r = 0.16-0.39). Linear associations were consistent across the 3-, 7-, and 30-day recall periods. CONCLUSIONS: Missing and unusable bladder diary data were common, highlighting the patient burden associated with this method of data collection. A questionnaire-based PROM is a reasonable alternative to a diary for reporting voiding frequency and may offer an easier option for reporting some symptoms.

Constructing and evaluating a validity argument for a performance outcome measure for clinical trials: An example using the Multi-luminance Mobility Test.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials that evaluate new medical products often use clinical outcome assessments to measure how patients feel or function. Determining the evidentiary support needed for clinical outcome assessments is challenging but necessary to ensure scores from a clinical outcome assessment reflect the relevant aspects of patients' health. Modern validity theory-from educational and psychological testing-addresses the challenge by requiring that investigators state key assumptions underlying the proposed use of a clinical outcome assessment and collect evidence for or against those assumptions. METHODS: This article describes the argument-based approach to validity using an example of a performance outcome measure-the Multi-luminance Mobility Test-designed to assess patients with inherited retinal dystrophy that causes progressive loss of night vision. For the proposed interpretation and use of a performance outcome measure to be reasonable, several key assumptions need to be plausible. I describe the assumptions along with examples of supporting evidence from the published literature to evaluate each assumption within the rationale. RESULTS: This article provides an example of a validity rationale to evaluate a clinical outcome assessment using the Multi-luminance Mobility Test as an example. CONCLUSION: The demonstration illustrates the use of the argument-based approach to validity evaluation and the challenges in supporting parts of a validity rationale for clinical outcome assessments that measure how patients feel and function in a more indirect way. By making clinical outcome assessment validation practices consistent with modern validity theory, investigators, sponsors, and regulators should be able to communicate more clearly and direct resources more efficiently to support the creation of patient-centered endpoints in clinical trials.

Ethics challenges in sharing data from pragmatic clinical trials.

Numerous arguments have been advanced for broadly sharing de-identified, participant-level clinical trials data, and trial sponsors and journals are increasingly requiring it. However, data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials presents ethical challenges related to the use of waivers or alterations of informed consent for some pragmatic clinical trials and corresponding limitations of informed consent to guide sharing decisions; the potential for data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials to present risks not only for individual patient-subjects, but also for health systems and the clinicians within them; sharing of data from electronic health records instead of data newly collected for research purposes; and researchers' limited capacity to control sensitive data within an electronic health record and potential implications of such limits for meeting obligations inherent to Certificates of Confidentiality. These challenges raise questions about the extent to which traditional research ethics governance structures are capable of guiding decisions about pragmatic clinical trial data sharing. This article identifies and examines these ethical challenges for pragmatic clinical trial data sharing. We suggest several areas for future empirical scholarship, including the need to identify patient and public attitudes regarding pragmatic clinical trial data sharing as well as to assess the demand for pragmatic clinical trial data and the correspondingly likely benefit of such sharing. Further conceptual work is also needed to explore how requirements to respect patient-subjects about whom data are shared in the context of pragmatic clinical trials should be understood, particularly in the absence of informed consent for initial research activities, and the appropriate balance between promoting the generation of socially valuable knowledge and respecting autonomy.

Correspondence Between Clinician Ratings of Vulvovaginal Health and Patient-Reported Sexual Function After Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tools for diagnosing sexual dysfunction and for tracking outcomes of interest include clinician interviews, physical exam, and patient self-report. Limited work has described relationships among these three sources of information regarding female sexual dysfunction and vulvovaginal health. AIM: We describe correlations among data collected from clinician interviews, clinical gynecological examination, and patient self-report. METHODS: Data are from a single-site, single-arm, prospective trial in 100 postmenopausal patients with a history of breast or endometrial cancer who sought treatment for vulvovaginal symptoms. The trial collected a standardized clinical gynecologic exam, clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) measures of vulvovaginal dryness and pain, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of sexual function, including PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction (SexFS) lubrication, vaginal discomfort, labial discomfort, and clitoral discomfort and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) lubrication and pain. We examined polyserial correlations between measures with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals from the baseline and 12-14-week timepoints. RESULTS: All of the relationships between the ClinRO variables and the PRO variables were in the expected direction (ie, positive), but the strength of the relationships varied substantially. At 12-14 weeks, there were medium-to-large correlations between ClinRO vaginal dryness and SexFS Lubrication (0.64), ClinRO vulvar dryness and SexFS Lubrication (0.46), ClinRO vulvar discomfort and SexFS Labial Discomfort (0.70), and ClinRO vulvar discomfort and SexFS Clitoral Discomfort (0.43). With one exception, the correlations between the exam variables and the corresponding PRO scores were small (range 0.01-0.27). STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Our study included a comprehensive, standardized gynecologic exam designed specifically to evaluate sexual dysfunction as well as established PRO measures with significant evidence for validity. A limitation of our findings is that the sample size was relatively small, and our sample was restricted to women who received cancer treatments known to have dramatic effects on vulvovaginal tissue quality. CONCLUSION: Patient- and clinician-reported vulvovaginal dryness and discomfort were moderately correlated with each other but not with clinical gynecologic exam findings. Understanding the relationships among these different types of data highlights the distinct contributions of each to understand vulvovaginal tissue quality and patient sexual function after cancer. Flynn KE, Lin L, Carter J, et al. Correspondence Between Clinician Ratings of Vulvovaginal Health and Patient-Reported Sexual Function After Cancer. J Sex Med 2021;18:1768-1774.

Enabling patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials, exemplified by cardiovascular trials.

OBJECTIVES: There has been limited success in achieving integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. We describe how stakeholders envision a solution to this challenge. METHODS: Stakeholders from academia, industry, non-profits, insurers, clinicians, and the Food and Drug Administration convened at a Think Tank meeting funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute to discuss the challenges of incorporating PROs into clinical trials and how to address those challenges. Using examples from cardiovascular trials, this article describes a potential path forward with a focus on applications in the United States. RESULTS: Think Tank members identified one key challenge: a common understanding of the level of evidence that is necessary to support patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trials. Think Tank participants discussed the possibility of creating general evidentiary standards depending upon contextual factors, but such guidelines could not be feasibly developed because many contextual factors are at play. The attendees posited that a more informative approach to PROM evidentiary standards would be to develop validity arguments akin to courtroom briefs, which would emphasize a compelling rationale (interpretation/use argument) to support a PROM within a specific context. Participants envisioned a future in which validity arguments would be publicly available via a repository, which would be indexed by contextual factors, clinical populations, and types of claims. CONCLUSIONS: A publicly available repository would help stakeholders better understand what a community believes constitutes compelling support for a specific PROM in a trial. Our proposed strategy is expected to facilitate the incorporation of PROMs into cardiovascular clinical trials and trials in general.

Constructing arguments for the interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures in research: an application of modern validity theory.

The past 100 years have witnessed an evolution of the meaning of validity and validation within the fields of education and psychology. Validity was once viewed as a property of tests and scales, but is now viewed as the extent to which theory and evidence support proposed interpretations and uses of test scores. Uncertainty about what types of validity evidence were needed motivated the current "argument-based" approach, as reflected in the 2014 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. According to this approach, investigators should delineate the assumptions required in order for a proposed interpretation or use to be plausible and then seek evidence that supports or refutes those assumptions. Though validation practices within the field of patient-reported outcome measurement have implicitly included many elements of the argument-based approach, the approach has yet to be explicitly adopted. To facilitate adoption, this article proposes an initial set of assumptions that might be included in most arguments for research-related interpretations and uses of scores from patient-reported outcome measures. The article also includes brief descriptions of the types of evidence that would be best suited for evaluating each assumption. It is hoped that these generic assumptions will stimulate further discussion and debate among quality of life researchers regarding how best to adopt modern validity theory to patient-reported outcome measures.