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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stakeholder perspectives on data sharing from pragmatic clinical trials: Unanticipated challenges for meeting emerging requirements.

Introduction: Numerous arguments have been advanced for broadly sharing de-identified, participant-level clinical trial data. However, data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) presents ethical challenges. While prior scholarship has described aspects of PCTs that raise distinct considerations for data sharing, there have been no reports of the experiences of those at the leading edge of data-sharing efforts for PCTs, including how these particular challenges have been navigated. To address this gap, we conducted interviews with key stakeholders, with a focus on the ethical issues presented by sharing data from PCTs. Methods: We recruited respondents using purposive sampling to reflect the range of stakeholder groups affected by efforts to expand PCT data sharing. Through semi-structured interviews, we explored respondents' experiences and perceptions about sharing de-identified, individual-level data from PCTs. An integrated approach was used to identify and describe key themes. Results: We conducted 40 interviews between April and September 2022. Five overarching themes emerged through analysis: (1) challenges in sharing data collected under a waiver or alteration of consent; (2) conflicting views regarding PCT patient-subject preferences for data sharing; (3) identification of respect-promoting practices beyond consent; (4) concerns about elevated risks or burdens from sharing PCT data; and (5) diverse views about the likely benefits resulting from sharing PCT data. Conclusion: Our data indicate unresolved tensions in how to fulfill the expectation to broadly share de-identified, individual-level data from PCTs, and suggest that those promulgating and implementing data-sharing policies must be sensitive to PCT-specific considerations. Future work could inform efforts to tailor data-sharing policy and practice to reflect the challenges presented by PCTs, including sharing experiences from trials that have successfully navigated these tensions.

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.

Comparison of History of Present Illness Summaries Generated by a Chatbot and Senior Internal Medicine Residents.

This prognostic study assesses the ability of a chatbot to write a history of present illness compared with senior internal medicine residents.

Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish version of the PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction Measures in clinical and nonclinical young adult populations.

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Sexual Function and Satisfaction (SexFS) version 2.0 measurement tool was developed to assess sexual functioning and satisfaction in the general population regardless of health condition and sexual orientation. Aim: The study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the PROMIS SexFS measure in clinical and nonclinical populations of young adults (aged <40 years). Methods: The SexFS was answered by a clinical population of young adult women (n = 180) and men (n = 110) with breast cancer and testicular cancer, respectively, and a nonclinical population of young adult women (n = 511) and men (n = 324) from the general population. Psychometric properties were evaluated by examining data quality (score distribution, floor and ceiling effects, proportion of missing data), construct validity (corrected item, total correlation, scaling success), and reliability (Cronbach α). Outcomes: The following domains of the SexFS 2.0 were investigated: Vaginal Lubrication, Vaginal Discomfort, Vulvar Discomfort- Clitoral, Vulvar Discomfort- Labial, Erectile Function, Interest in Sexual Activity, Satisfaction With Sex Life, Orgasm- Ability, and Orgasm- Pleasure. Results: The Swedish version of the SexFS 2.0 generated data of acceptable quality. Some noteworthy floor or ceiling effects were identified across domains and respondent groups. Corrected item totals were used to express the coherence between an item and the other items in the domain. The correlation coefficients were above 0.40 for all items, except for 1 of the items within the Vaginal Discomfort domain and for the items in the Erectile Function domain in the nonclinical group of men. High proportions of scaling success were noted across domains (96%-100%). Reliability was satisfactory (α = 0.74-0.92) for all domains, expect for Erectile Function of the nonclinical group (α = 0.53), due to low variability in item responses, which was improved somewhat (α = 0.65) when combined with the clinical group. Clinical Implications: A flexible tool to measure self-reported sexual function and satisfaction in young men and women is available for researchers and clinicians in Sweden. Strengths and Limitations: The nationwide population-based sample of patients with cancer, identified from national quality registers, minimized selection bias. However, men in the general population had a lower response rate (34%) compared to the other groups, which introduced a risk of bias in estimates. The psychometric evaluation was limited to young adults (aged 19-40 years). Conclusion: The results provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the Swedish version of the SexFS measure for the assessment of sexual functioning and satisfaction in young adults from both clinical and nonclinical populations.

Advancing workforce diversity by leveraging the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program.

Clinical trials continue to disproportionately underrepresent people of color. Increasing representation of diverse backgrounds among clinical research personnel has the potential to yield greater representation in clinical trials and more efficacious medical interventions by addressing medical mistrust. In 2019, North Carolina Central University (NCCU), a Historically Black College and University with a more than 80% underrepresented student population, established the Clinical Research Sciences Program with support from the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program at neighboring Duke University. This program was designed to increase exposure of students from diverse educational, racial, and ethnic backgrounds to the field of clinical research, with a special focus on health equity education. In the first year, the program graduated 11 students from the two-semester certificate program, eight of whom now hold positions as clinical research professionals. This article describes how leveraging the CTSA program helped NCCU build a framework for producing a highly trained, competent, and diverse workforce in clinical research responsive to the call for increased diversity in clinical trial participation.

Intervention delivery for embedded pragmatic clinical trials: Development of a tool to measure complexity.

BACKGROUND: Conducting an embedded pragmatic clinical trial in the workflow of a healthcare system is a complex endeavor. The complexity of the intervention delivery can have implications for study planning, ability to maintain fidelity to the intervention during the trial, and/or ability to detect meaningful differences in outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a literature review, developed a tool, and conducted two rounds of phone calls with NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Demonstration Project principal investigators to develop the Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool. After refining the tool, we piloted it with Collaboratory demonstration projects and developed an online version of the tool using the R Shiny application (https://duke-som.shinyapps.io/ICT-ePCT/). RESULTS: The 6-item tool consists of internal and external factors. Internal factors pertain to the intervention itself and include workflow, training, and the number of intervention components. External factors are related to intervention delivery at the system level including differences in healthcare systems, the dependency on setting for implementation, and the number of steps between the intervention and the outcome. CONCLUSION: The Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool was developed as a standard way to overcome communication challenges of intervention delivery within an embedded pragmatic trial. This version of the tool is most likely to be useful to the trial team and its health system partners during trial planning and conduct. We expect further evolution of the tool as more pragmatic trials are conducted and feedback is received on its performance outside of the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory.

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.

Characterizing the Language Used to Discuss Death in Family Meetings for Critically Ill Infants.

Importance: Communication during conversations about death is critical; however, little is known about the language clinicians and families use to discuss death. Objective: To characterize (1) the way death is discussed in family meetings between parents of critically ill infants and the clinical team and (2) how discussion of death differs between clinicians and family members. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal qualitative study took place at a single academic hospital in the southeast US. Patients were enrolled from September 2018 to September 2020, and infants were followed up longitudinally throughout their hospitalization. Participants included families of infants with neurologic conditions who were hospitalized in the intensive care unit and had a planned family meeting to discuss neurologic prognosis or starting, not starting, or discontinuing life-sustaining treatment. Family meetings were recorded, transcribed, and deidentified before being screened for discussion of death. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the language used to reference death during family meetings between parents and clinicians. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze data. Results: A total of 68 family meetings involving 36 parents of 24 infants were screened; 33 family meetings (49%) involving 20 parents (56%) and 13 infants (54%) included discussion of death. Most parents involved in discussion of death identified as the infant's mother (13 [65%]) and as Black (12 [60%]). Death was referenced 406 times throughout the family meetings (275 times by clinicians and 131 times by family members); the words die, death, dying, or stillborn were used 5% of the time by clinicians (13 of 275 references) and 15% of the time by family members (19 of 131 references). Four types of euphemisms used in place of die, death, dying, or stillborn were identified: (1) survival framing (eg, not live), (2) colloquialisms (eg, pass away), (3) medical jargon, including obscure technical terms (eg, code event) or talking around death with physiologic terms (eg, irrecoverable heart rate drop), and (4) pronouns without an antecedent (eg, it). The most common type of euphemism used by clinicians was medical jargon (118 of 275 references [43%]). The most common type of euphemism used by family members was colloquialism (44 of 131 references [34%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, the words die, death, dying, or stillborn were rarely used to refer to death in family meetings with clinicians. Families most often used colloquialisms to reference death, and clinicians most often used medical jargon. Future work should evaluate the effects of euphemisms on mutual understanding, shared decision-making, and clinician-family relationships.

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.