Patient-targeted education (ePRO-E) to increase ePRO intent within an Alliance clinical trial (A221805-SI1).

BACKGROUND: The Patient Cloud ePRO app was adopted by the National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) to facilitate capturing electronic patient-reported (ePRO) outcome data, but use has been low. The study objectives were to test whether a patient-targeted ePRO educational resource (ePRO-E) would increase ePRO intent (number of users) and improve data quality (high quality: ≥80% of the required surveys submitted) within an ongoing NCTN study. METHODS: The ePRO-E intervention, a patient-targeted educational resource (written material and 6-minute animated YouTube video), was designed to address ePRO barriers. ePRO intent and data quality were compared between 2 groups (N = 69): a historical control group and a prospectively recruited intervention group exposed to ePRO-E. Covariates included technology attitudes, age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity. RESULTS: Intervention group ePRO intent (78.8%) was statistically significantly higher than historical control group intent (47.1%) (P = .03). Patients choosing ePRO versus paper surveys had more positive and higher technology attitudes scores (P = .03). The odds of choosing ePRO were 4.7 times higher (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.2 to 17.8) (P = .02) among intervention group patients and 5.2 times higher (95% CI = 1.3 to 21.6) (P = .02) among patients with high technology attitudes scores, after controlling for covariates. However, the 80% submission rate (percentage submitting ≥80% of required surveys) in the ePRO group (30.6%) was statistically significantly lower than in the paper group (57.9%) (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: ePRO-E exposure increased ePRO intent. High technology attitudes scores were associated with ePRO selection. Since the ePRO survey submission rate was low, additional strategies are needed to promote high-quality data submission.

Characteristics and patterns of pediatric chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review.

This systematic review provides a high-quality synthesis of the empirical evidence regarding chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) characteristics and patterns described in studies of children who received neurotoxic chemotherapy to treat cancer. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched for articles published 2009 - 2019, yielding 861. Forty-two papers met the eligibility criteria, including 31 that described characteristics and patterns of vincristine-induced CIPN. Fifty-seven percent of articles were of low to moderate quality; measurement flaws were the most common limitations. The reported CIPN incidence varies widely (2.8%-100%) depending on risk factors (e.g., race) and the measurement approach. Incidence rates of sensory, motor, autonomic CIPN, and pain were 12-28%, 50-72%, 0.8-83% and 5.7-44%, respectively. The evidence suggests that sensory and motor neuropathy, pain, and functional deficits are common and can persist into adulthood. Caucasian race is a risk factor and, contrary to prior thinking, cumulative chemotherapy dosage alone does not predict CIPN severity. The influence of other risk factors is less clear, and studies to date have not explored potential interactions among race, genetics, age, sex, drug metabolism, and nutritional status, among other factors.

Comparing three approaches for involving patients in research prioritization: a qualitative study of participant experiences.

BACKGROUND: By participating in priority-setting activities in research, patients and members of the public help ensure that important questions are incorporated into future research agendas. Surveys, focus groups, and online crowdsourcing are increasingly used to obtain input, yet little is known about how they compare for prioritizing research topics. To address this gap, the Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER) evaluated participant satisfaction with the engagement experience across three prioritization activities. METHODS: Respondents from Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD), a registry of patients 65 years and older with low back pain (LBP), were randomly assigned to one of three interactive prioritization activities: online crowd-voting, in-person focus groups using nominal group technique, and two rounds of a mailed survey (Delphi). To assess quality of experience, participants completed a brief survey; a subset were subsequently interviewed. We used descriptive statistics to characterize participants, and we analyzed responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach, tabulating responses to Likert-scale questions and using thematic analysis of interviews to explore participant understanding of the activity and perceptions of experience. RESULTS: The crowd-voting activity had 38 participants, focus groups 39, and the Delphi survey 74. Women outnumbered men in the focus groups and Delphi survey; otherwise, demographics among groups were similar, with participants being predominantly white, non-Hispanic, and college educated. Activities generated similar lists of research priorities, including causes of LBP, improving physician-patient communication, and self-care strategies. The evaluation survey was completed by 123 participants. Of these, 31 across all activities were interviewed about motivations to participate, understanding of activity goals, logistics, clarity of instructions, and the role of patients in research. Focus group participants rated their experience highest, in both the evaluation and interviews. CONCLUSION: Common methods for research prioritization yielded similar priorities but differing perceptions of experience. Such comparative studies are rare but important in understanding methods to involve patients and the public in research. Preferences for different methods may vary across stakeholder groups; this warrants future study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NICHSR, HSRP20152274. Registered 19 February 2015.

Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER): Study Protocol to Compare Qualitative Research Methods and Advance Patient Engagement in Research.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients as partners in research is a defining characteristic of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). While patients' experiential knowledge of a health condition or treatment may yield research priorities not reflected by researchers and policy makers, the methods for identifying and effectively collaborating with patients are still evolving. Patient registries and crowdsourcing may offer ease of access and convenience to both researchers and patients. Surveys and focus groups, including online modalities, have been described for prioritizing research topics. However, little is known about how these different methods compare in producing consistent priorities and similar perceptions of engagement quality among participants. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are (1) to compare how different engagement methods used to elicit patient priorities for research perform as measured by rankings for priorities generated and participant satisfaction; and (2) to determine characteristics of individuals choosing to participate in research prioritization activities. METHODS: Participants in the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) patient registry, established to evaluate the natural history of back pain among individuals 65 years and older, and participants on the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) crowdsourcing platform, to provide input on priorities for research via a questionnaire, are invited. For BOLD participants, we subsequently randomize interested respondents to 1 of 3 interactive prioritization activities to further develop priorities: a Delphi panel, an online crowd voting activity, or an in-person facilitated prioritization activity using nominal group technique (NGT). Participants involved in each activity complete a survey to evaluate the quality of the experience and a subset of these participants discuss their experience further in an interview. Descriptive statistics are used to characterize the rankings produced by each method and compare the top 5 rated topics resulting from each prioritization activity. We use rank-ordered logistic regression models to identify associations of the ranked priority topics with baseline patient characteristics. We analyze responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach wherein we tabulate responses to Likert-scale questions and use content analysis to enumerate themes emerging from interviews for the 3 activities. RESULTS: In Phase I, we invite approximately 3000 BOLD participants and 500 Amazon MTurk workers to complete a research topic prioritization survey. Based on these results, we include additional topics into a subsequent prioritization survey. In Phase II, we invite BOLD participants to join 1 of 3 activities: 90 participants for Delphi panel, 100 participants for crowd voting, and 60 participants for focus groups. Of the Phase II participants, 30 will be interviewed to evaluate the activities. CONCLUSIONS: This study informs decisions about how to conduct outreach to patient registry participants for providing input on research priorities, how individuals 65 years and older wish to participate in engagement activities, and how different research prioritization methods compare in terms of rankings generated and participant satisfaction.

Assessing cancer survivors' needs using web-based technology: a pilot study.

Development of cancer survivor resources has been hampered by lack of knowledge regarding survivors' needs. The main study aim was to pilot test a Web-based cancer survivor needs assessment survey. The second aim was to pilot three sampling approaches. This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center and nine community-based clinics serving urban and rural populations. Population-based and convenience sampling approaches were used to recruit 547 participants over 4 months. Participants completed a Web-based cancer survivor needs assessment survey. Respondents were mainly white (98%), married (71%) women (80%) with a college education (96%). Although most (66%) (n = 362) had been diagnosed with breast cancer, other cancer diagnoses were represented. Participants reported fatigue (47%), forgetfulness (39%), joint pain (34%), anxiety (31%), trouble sleeping (28%), peripheral neuropathy (27%), inflexibility (23%), and weight gain (23%). Survivors with nonbreast solid tumor malignancies reported more problems than those with breast or hematologic malignancies (P range = .037 to <.0001). Most survivors requested assistance for losing weight (74.2%), decreasing fatigue (50%), and improving flexibility (69.3%), sleep (68.5%), and memory (60.2%). Results supported that cancer survivors struggle with many enduring problems. Web-based technology will facilitate future exploration of unmet needs.