[Special issue PRO] A demonstration of estimands and sensitivity analyses for time-to-deterioration of patient reported outcomes.

In oncology trials, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), specifically patient-reported symptom burden and functional status, can support the interpretation of survival endpoints, such as progression-free survival. However, applying time-to-event endpoints to patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data is challenging. For example, in time-to-deterioration analyses clinical events such as disease progression are common in many settings and are often handled through censoring the patient at the time of occurrence; however, disease progression and HRQoL are often related leading to informative censoring. Special consideration to the definition of events and intercurrent events (ICEs) is necessary. In this work, we demonstrate time-to-deterioration of PRO estimands and sensitivity analyses to answer research questions using composite, hypothetical, and treatment policy strategies applied to a single endpoint of disease-related symptoms. Multiple imputation methods under both the missing-at-random and missing-not-at-random assumptions are used as sensitivity analyses of primary estimands. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.52 to 0.66 over all the estimands and sensitivity analyses modeling a robust treatment effect favoring the treatment in time to disease symptom deterioration or death. Differences in the estimands include how people who experience disease progression or discontinue the randomized treatment due to AEs are accounted for in the analysis. We use the estimand framework to define interpretable and principled approaches for different time-to-deterioration research questions and provide practical recommendations. Reporting the proportions of patient events and patient censoring by reason helps understand the mechanisms that drive the results, allowing for optimal interpretation.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework.

Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

Palliative care symptoms and problems in a culturally and linguistically diverse population: large retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Migrant Australians with cancer have higher unmet needs and poorer health-related quality of life. Less is known about their palliative care experience. We aimed to assess comparative symptom distress and problem severity for culturally and linguistically diverse Australians with cancer in palliative care. METHODS: This was a retrospective, consecutive cohort study using data from the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration, which routinely collects standardised symptom assessments nationally at point-of-care. Adults with a cancer diagnosis who died 01/01/2016-31/12/2019 were included. The presence/absence of patient-reported symptom distress and clinician-rated problem severity were compared between people who preferred English and people who preferred another language using logistic regression models. We also compared people who preferred English and the four most common non-English languages in the dataset: Chinese, Greek, Italian and Slavic. RESULTS: A total of 53 964 people with cancer died within the study period, allowing analysis of 104 064 assessments. People preferring non-English languages were less likely to report symptoms (pain: OR=0.89 (0.84 to 0.94); all other symptoms except fatigue OR<1 and CIs did not contain 1). Except for family/carer problems (OR=1.24 (1.12 to 1.31)), linguistically diverse people were less likely to report problems. Variation was seen between non-English language groups. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence of comparatively worse symptom distress or problem severity for nearly all scores for culturally and linguistically diverse Australians. Better symptom management or differential reporting may explain this. It is important to examine this further, including assessing differences within cultural and linguistic groups to ensure the delivery of high-quality palliative care.

Patient and carer experiences of living with multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple myeloma (MM) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) are treatable but incurable conditions that can substantially impact the daily lives of people living with these conditions and their carers. We sought to understand the experience of people living with and carers affected by these conditions in Tasmania, a regional area of Australia. METHODS: Exploratory qualitative study. People living with MM or MDS or their carers in Southern Tasmania were recruited by a haematology nurse and invited to participate in focus groups. Data collection was by groups held online and face-to-face in 2022. Thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: Ten groups were held with 48 participants (n = 23 with MM, n = 9 with MDS, n = 16 carers). Key themes arising from focus groups with people living with MM/MDS were (1) Relationships and Support; (2) Positive Attitude; (3) Perception of Condition; and (4) Symptoms and Comorbidities. Some people with MM/MDS had to take on a caring role for their carer due to carer illness. Key themes arising from carer focus groups included (1) Supportive Relationships; (2) Accommodating Change; and (3) Own Needs. Not all carers viewed their caring role as burdensome. CONCLUSION: Future work should consider what supports are required for patients acting as carers, and carer burden should not be assumed.

The impact of regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine for chronic breathlessness on caregiver burden: An exploratory analysis of the BEAMS trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic breathlessness adversely impacts people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their caregivers (family and friends), who may, in turn, experience significant burden due to their caregiving role. Sustained-release morphine may reduce chronic breathlessness in some patients, which may have an impact on caregivers' perceived burden. AIM: To explore the impact on caregiver burden of active treatment of people with chronic breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) ⩾ 3) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine within a multi-site, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. DESIGN: Exploratory analysis of self-reported caregiver burden at baseline and end of week 3 in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Caregiver measures included: demographics and perceived burden (Zarit Burden Interview 12-item short-form questionnaire). Patient measures included: worst breathlessness and FitBitR-measures. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All consenting caregivers of trial patient participants in a multi-site study recruiting from palliative care and respiratory services. RESULTS: Caregivers (n = 49; 59% women; median age 68 years [IQR 50-75]) reported median baseline caregiver burden 12 [IQR 5-17], with 53% reporting high burden (⩾13). Eighty-four percent of caregivers reported no change in burden. In people whose worst breathlessness improved, caregiver burden moved in the same direction, though the correlation was not significant (rs = 0.25, p = 0.17). Conversely, caregiver burden worsened as patients' minutes lightly active increased, with the correlation being significant (rs = 0.56, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers reported high levels of caregiver burden, but patients' response to treatment in terms of their symptom and function may influence change in caregiver burden over a three-week period.

Handling Missing Data in Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR): A Systematic Review and Practical Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Missing data in costs and/or health outcomes and in confounding variables can create bias in the inference of health economics and outcomes research studies, which in turn can lead to inappropriate policies. Most of the literature focuses on handling missing data in randomized controlled trials, which are not necessarily always the data used in health economics and outcomes research. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to provide an overview on missing data issues and how to address incomplete data and report the findings of a systematic literature review of methods used to deal with missing data in health economics and outcomes research studies that focused on cost, utility, and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search of papers published in English language until the end of the year 2020 was carried out in PubMed. Studies using statistical methods to handle missing data for analyses of cost, utility, or patient-reported outcome data were included, as were reviews and guidance papers on handling missing data for those outcomes. The data extraction was conducted with a focus on the context of the study, the type of missing data, and the methods used to tackle missing data. RESULTS: From 1433 identified records, 40 papers were included. Thirteen studies were economic evaluations. Thirty studies used multiple imputation with 17 studies using multiple imputation by chained equation, while 15 studies used a complete-case analysis. Seventeen studies addressed missing cost data and 23 studies dealt with missing outcome data. Eleven studies reported a single method while 20 studies used multiple methods to address missing data. CONCLUSIONS: Several health economics and outcomes research studies did not offer a justification of their approach of handling missing data and some used only a single method without a sensitivity analysis. This systematic literature review highlights the importance of considering the missingness mechanism and including sensitivity analyses when planning, analyzing, and reporting health economics and outcomes research studies.

Development of consensus-based considerations for use of adult proxy reporting: an ISOQOL task force initiative.

AIMS: Many large-scale population-based surveys, research studies, and clinical care allow for inclusion of proxy reporting as a strategy to collect outcomes when patients are unavailable or unable to provide reliable self-report. Prior work identified an absence of methodological guidelines regarding proxy reporting in adult populations, including who can serve as a proxy, and considerations for data collection, analysis, and reporting. The primary objective of this work by the ISOQOL Proxy Task Force was to review documents and clinical outcome assessment measures with respect to proxy reporting and to develop, through consensus, considerations for proxy reporting. METHODS: We assembled an international group with clinically relevant and/or methodological expertise on proxy use in adult populations. We conducted a targeted review of documentation based on regulatory, non-regulatory, professional society, and individual measure sources. Using a standardized collection form, proxy-related information was extracted from each source including definitions of a proxy, characteristics of a proxy, domains addressable or addressed by a proxy, and observer-reporting. RESULTS: The definition of proxy was inconsistent across 39 sources, except regulatory documents which defined a proxy as a person other than the patient who reports on an outcome as if she/he were the patient. While proxy report was discouraged in regulatory documentation, it was acknowledged there were instances where self-report was impossible. Many documentation sources indicated proxies would be well-justified in certain contexts, but did not indicate who could act as a proxy, when proxies could be used, what domains of patient health they could report on, or how data should be reported. Observer-reported outcomes were typically defined as those based on observed behaviors, however there was not a consistent differentiation between proxy and observer reporting. Based on information extracted from these resources, we developed a checklist of considerations when including proxy-reported measures or using proxies in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of proxy reported data. CONCLUSION: Our targeted review highlights a lack of clarity in capturing, interpreting and reporting data from proxies in adult populations. We provide a checklist of considerations to assist researchers and clinicians with including proxies in research studies and clinical care. Lastly, our review identified areas where further guidance and future research are necessary.

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials.

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field.

Identifying Nursing Home Residents with Unmet Palliative Care Needs: A Systematic Review of Screening Tool Measurement Properties.

OBJECTIVES: Despite common use of palliative care screening tools in other settings, the performance of these tools in the nursing home has not been well established; therefore, the purpose of this review is to (1) identify palliative care screening tools validated for nursing home residents and (2) critically appraise, compare, and summarize the quality of measurement properties. DESIGN: Systematic review of measurement properties consistent with Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (Ovid) were searched from inception to May 2022. Studies that (1) reported the development or evaluation of a palliative care screening tool and (2) sampled older adults living in a nursing home were included. METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened, selected, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: We identified only 1 palliative care screening tool meeting COSMIN criteria, the NECesidades Paliativas (NEC-PAL, equivalent to palliative needs in English), but evidence for use with nursing home residents was of low quality. The NEC-PAL lacked robust testing of measurement properties such as reliability, sensitivity, and specificity in the nursing home setting. Construct validity through hypothesis testing was adequate but only reported in 1 study. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to guide practice. Broadening the criteria further, this review reports on 3 additional palliative care screening tools identified during the search and screening process but which were excluded during full-text review for various reasons. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Given the unique care environment of nursing homes, we recommend future studies to validate available tools and develop new instruments specifically designed for nursing home use. In the meantime, we recommend that clinicians consider the evidence presented here and choose a screening instrument that best meets their needs.

The potential impact of proxy reports for symptom experience and care quality and experience in advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVES: As the US tests models of care for the seriously ill, patient perceptions of the quality of care are important. Proxies are often needed for this group. We sought to understand the potential impact of proxy reports for the assessment of care quality and experience in cancer. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of a deidentified prospective study that included surveys of perceived care quality, including symptom management, from patients with advanced cancer receiving chemotherapy and their caregivers. Surveys were administered at diagnosis (time 1) and treatment (time 2), with top-box scoring used for analysis. Overall concordance was assessed using metrics including Gwet's AC1. The proportion of the highest scores by respondent type within 2 subgroups were examined: (1) symptom burden and (2) practice setting. RESULTS: Data from 83 dyads were analyzed. Proxies and patients frequently reported the highest scores for quality (time 1: proxies: 77% and patients: 80%). At time 1, 14% of proxies and 10% of patients reported an unmet need for symptom palliation. Most patients reporting an unmet need gave the top score for quality (75%), but fewer proxies did so (45%). Proxy and patient reports were similar within practice settings. Concordance was at least moderate (nearly all outcomes >0.5 and some >0.8) by Gwet's AC1. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Findings of at least moderate concordance and similar experience outcomes within subgroups suggest the use of proxies may not change estimates substantially. However, consideration should be taken when evaluating symptom management, particularly if such evaluations inform assessment of provider performance.

Assessing the impact of open-label designs in patient-reported outcomes: investigation in oncology clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of treatment assignment may affect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which is of concern in oncology, where open-label trials are common. This study measured the magnitude of open-label bias by comparing PROs for similar patient groups in oncology trials with different degrees of concealment. METHODS: Individual patient data from ipilimumab arms of 2 melanoma and docetaxel arms of 2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials were adjusted for differences using propensity score weighting. Patients were aware of treatment assignment in CA184-022 and CheckMate 057 (open-label) but not in MDX010-20 and VITAL (blinded). Overall survival (OS) and mean changes from baseline to week 12 in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (melanoma) and Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (NSCLC) scores were compared between open-label and blinded groups. RESULTS: After adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced between blinded (melanoma, n = 125; NSCLC, n = 424) and open-label (melanoma, n = 69; NSCLC, n = 205) groups. Study discontinuation and PRO completion rates at week 12 and OS were similar. There was no clear direction in differences in change scores between groups. In the melanoma trials, role functioning (mean = -5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -15.4 to 5.0), global health status (mean = -1.3, 95% CI = -8.7 to 6.1), and pain (mean = 6.2 , 95% CI = -1.8 to 14.2) favored the blinded, whereas emotional functioning (mean = 2.2, 95% CI = -5.8 to 10.2) and diarrhea (mean = -8.3, 95% CI = -17.3 to 0.7) favored the open-label group. In the NSCLC trials, changes in dyspnea (mean = 5.4, 95% CI = -0.7 to 11.5) favored the blinded and changes in appetite (mean = -1.2, 95% CI = -8.1 to 5.7) favored the open-label group. None were clinically or statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the growing evidence demonstrating that concerns regarding open-label bias should not prohibit the interpretation of large and meaningful treatment effects on PROs.

An Integrated Approach to Workplace Mental Health: A Scoping Review of Instruments That Can Assist Organizations with Implementation.

This study aimed to identify instruments that may assist organizations with implementing an integrated approach to workplace mental health using three activities from the knowledge to action (KTA) framework. A scoping review of published and grey literature, supported by stakeholder (business end-user and researcher) consultation, identified work-specific instruments that were relevant to at least one of the three domains of an integrated approach to workplace mental health: 'prevent harm', 'promote the positive', and 'respond to problems'. A total of 207 instruments were located, and 109 instruments met eligibility criteria. 10 instruments were located that were relevant to multiple domains, however most instruments (n = 72) were relevant to the 'prevent harm' domain. Instruments relevant to the 'promote the positive' (n = 14) and 'respond to problems' (n = 13) domains were limited. Most instruments found were suitable for the 'monitor, review and improve' KTA activity. Further development of instruments that can assist with 'promote the positive' and 'respond to problems' strategies are required, specifically those instruments that can assist organizations with the 'identify gaps and opportunities' and 'identify priorities and design new/enhanced interventions' KTA activities.

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

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

How Useful Are Digital Health Terms for Outcomes Research? An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review definitions of digital health and understand their relevance for health outcomes research. Four umbrella terms (digital health, electronic health, mobile health, and telehealth/telemedicine) were summarized in this article. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and EconLit were searched from January 2015 to May 2020 for systematic reviews containing key Medical Subject Headings terms for digital health (n = 38) and synonyms of "definition." Independent pairs of reviewers performed each stage of the review, with reconciliation by a third reviewer if required. A single reviewer consolidated each definition for consistency. We performed text analysis via word clouds and computed document frequency-and inverse corpus frequency scores. RESULTS: The search retrieved 2610 records with 545 articles (20.9%) taken forward for full-text review. Of these, 39.3% (214 of 545) were eligible for data extraction, of which 134 full-text articles were retained for this analysis containing 142 unique definitions of umbrella terms (digital health [n = 4], electronic health [n = 36], mobile health [n = 50], and telehealth/telemedicine [n = 52]). Seminal definitions exist but have increasingly been adapted over time and new definitions were created. Nevertheless, the most characteristic words extracted from the definitions via the text analyses still showed considerable overlap between the 4 umbrella terms. CONCLUSIONS: To focus evidence summaries for outcomes research purposes, umbrella terms should be accompanied by Medical Subject Headings terms reflecting population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, and setting. Ultimately a functional classification system is needed to create standardized terminology for digital health interventions denoting the domains of patient-level effects and outcomes.

Assessment of patient perception of treatment assignment and patient-reported outcomes in a cannabis use disorder trial.

Background: Blinding is a cornerstone of trial methodology. Prior work indicates participant-perceived assignment may be associated with trial outcomes. Less is known about how perception changes over time and if this is associated with outcomes.Objectives: To evaluate if participants change their perception of assignment over time in a blinded trial, and if perception is associated with different types of patient-reported outcomes (PROs).Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from the Achieving Cannabis Cessation-Evaluating N-Acetylcysteine Treatment (ACCENT) trial, which evaluated the efficacy of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) relative to placebo for treating cannabis use disorder. Participants (N = 234; 164 men, 70 women) were asked at weeks 5 and 9 what treatment (placebo or NAC) they believed they were receiving. We included PROs proximal (cannabis-associated problems, craving) and distal (anxiety) to the intervention. Analysis was by multiple linear regression and mixed models.Results: Approximately 20% of participants in both arms changed their perception over time. Relative to participants who consistently perceived assignment to placebo, participants who consistently perceived assignment to NAC did not always have comparatively better average scores (coefficient -3.3 [95% CI: -7.0, 0.5]). In some analyses, participants who switched to guessing NAC from placebo had comparatively better average scores (coefficient -3.0 [95% CI: -9.3, 3.4]), but this was inconsistent across outcomes or strata defined by actual assignment or guess accuracy.Conclusion: The study suggests that the proportion of individuals who switch their perception over time is modest. However, this group may influence the estimates of intervention effects on some PROs.

An Exploratory Analysis of the "Was It Worth It?" Questionnaire as a Novel Metric to Capture Patient Perceptions of Cancer Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Asking "Was it worth it?" (WIWI) potentially captures the patient perception of a treatment's benefit weighed against its harms. This exploratory analysis evaluates the WIWI questionnaire as a metric of patients' perspectives on the worthwhileness of cancer treatment. METHODS: A 3-item WIWI questionnaire was assessed at end of treatment in patients with cancer on the COMET-2 trial (NCT01522443). WIWI items were evaluated to determine their association with quality of life (QOL), treatment duration, end-of-treatment reason, patient-reported adverse events (AEs), and disease response. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients completed the questionnaire; 40 (62%), 16 (25%), and 9 (14%) patients replied yes, uncertain, and no to "Was it worthwhile for you to receive the cancer treatment given in this study?" (item 1), respectively; 39 (60%), 12 (18%), and 14 (22%) to "If you had to do it over again, would you choose to have this cancer treatment?"; and 40 (62%), 14 (22%), and 11 (17%) to "Would you recommend this cancer treatment to others?" Patients responding yes to item 1 remained on treatment longer than those responding uncertain or no (mean 23.0 vs 11.3 weeks, P<.001). Patients responding uncertain/no to item 1 discontinued treatment because of AEs more frequently than those responding yes (36% vs 7.5%, P=.004) and demonstrated meaningful decline in QOL from baseline (-2.5 vs -0.2 mean change, P<.001). Associations between WIWI responses and most patient-reported AEs or treatment efficacy did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who responded affirmatively on WIWI items remained on therapy longer, were less likely to stop treatment because of AEs, and demonstrated superior QOL. The WIWI may inform clinical practice, oncology research, and value frameworks.

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.

Missing data in palliative care research: estimands and estimators.

There are several methodological challenges when conducting randomised controlled trials in palliative care. These include worsening function and high mortality, leading to treatment discontinuation, some of which will be unrelated to the intervention being evaluated.Recently, a new framework for handling postrandomisation events, such as attrition, has been released. This framework aims to align trial objectives, design, conduct and analysis by clarifying what and how to estimate treatment effects in the presence of data affected by postrandomisation events.The purpose of this paper is to introduce palliative care researchers to this framework and how it can guide trial design, and efficacy and safety analysis in a palliative care context where individual withdrawal from the trial is common.In this paper, we describe the estimand framework and the background for it. We also consider postrandomisation events that are frequently encountered in palliative care trials and how these might affect objectives of interest. We then construct efficacy and safety estimands for a trial in palliative care. Better trial design and alignment of objectives with analysis can improve our understanding of what treatments do and do not work in palliative care.