Proceedings From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Workshop to Control Hypertension.

Hypertension treatment and control prevent more cardiovascular events than management of other modifiable risk factors. Although the age-adjusted proportion of US adults with controlled blood pressure (BP) defined as <140/90 mm Hg, improved from 31.8% in 1999-2000 to 48.5% in 2007-2008, it remained stable through 2013-2014 and declined to 43.7% in 2017-2018. To address the rapid decline in hypertension control, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a virtual workshop with multidisciplinary national experts. Also, the group sought to identify opportunities to reverse the adverse trend and further improve hypertension control. The workshop immediately preceded the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Control Hypertension, which recognized a stagnation in progress with hypertension control. The presentations and discussions included potential reasons for the decline and challenges in hypertension control, possible "big ideas," and multisector approaches that could reverse the current trend while addressing knowledge gaps and research priorities. The broad set of "big ideas" was comprised of various activities that may improve hypertension control, including: interventions to engage patients, promotion of self-measured BP monitoring with clinical support, supporting team-based care, implementing telehealth, enhancing community-clinical linkages, advancing precision population health, developing tailored public health messaging, simplifying hypertension treatment, using process and outcomes quality metrics to foster accountability and efficiency, improving access to high-quality health care, addressing social determinants of health, supporting cardiovascular public health and research, and lowering financial barriers to hypertension control.

Patient-Centered Approaches to Transitional Care Research and Implementation: Overview and Insights From Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Transitional Care Portfolio.

BACKGROUND: This Special Issue, Future Directions in Transitional Care Research, focuses on the approaches used and lessons learned by researchers conducting care transitions studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). PCORI's approach to transitional care research augments prior research by encouraging researchers to focus on head-to-head comparisons of interventions, the use of patient-centered outcomes, and the engagement of stakeholders throughout the research process. OBJECTIVES: This paper introduces the themes and topics addressed by the articles that follow, which are focused on opportunities and challenges involved in conducting patient-centered clinical comparative effectiveness research in transitional care. It provides an overview of the state of the care transitions field, a description of PCORI's programmatic objectives, highlights of the patient and stakeholder engagement activities that have taken place during the course of these studies, and a brief overview of PCORI's Transitional Care Evidence to Action Network, a learning community designed to foster collaboration between investigators and their research teams and enhance the collective impact of this body of work. CONCLUSIONS: The papers in this Special Issue articulate challenges, lessons learned, and new directions for measurement, stakeholder engagement, implementation, and methodological and design approaches that reflect the complexity of transitional care comparative effectiveness research and seek to move the field toward a more holistic understanding of transitional care that integrates social needs and lifespan development into our approaches to improving care transitions.

Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research Focused on Community-Based Delivery of Palliative Care: Overview of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Funding Initiative.

Palliative care is a growing specialty that addresses the needs of individuals diagnosed with advanced illness and their caregivers. Although palliative care has been shown to improve a variety of patient- and caregiver-centered outcomes, access to comprehensive palliative care services for patients is often limited. There is a need to identify the most effective approaches to delivering palliative care to patients in community settings. In fiscal year 2017, based on extensive input from a diverse set of stakeholders, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded nine multisite comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) trials focused on community-based delivery of palliative care for a total investment of $80 million. These studies, focusing on advance care planning and models of palliative care delivery, represent some of the largest most complex palliative care trials funded to date. Each study evaluates both patient and caregiver outcomes, and together, these trials include a broad range of health conditions, interventions, and settings of care. PCORI has also fostered a learning network of the funded awardees to facilitate the successful conduct of these CER studies and to support awardee efforts to develop collaborative products relevant to advancing the field of palliative care research and practice. The protocols of each of the nine trials, detailed in this issue, demonstrate the expansive reach of the investment PCORI has made in an effort to further the research agenda and provide substantive research evidence in stakeholder-identified areas of need in the field of palliative care.

Perceptions of Patients With Breast and Colon Cancer of the Management of Cancer-Related Pain, Fatigue, and Emotional Distress in Community Oncology.

PURPOSE: Pain, fatigue, and distress are common among patients with cancer but are often underassessed and undertreated. We examine the prevalence of pain, fatigue, and emotional distress among patients with cancer, as well as patient perceptions of the symptom care they received. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer centers across the United States sampled patients with local/regional breast (82%) or colon (18%) cancer. We received 2,487 completed surveys (61% response rate). RESULTS: Of patients, 76%, 78%, and 59% reported talking to a clinician about pain, fatigue, and distress, respectively, and 70%, 61%, and 54% reported receiving advice. Sixty-one percent of patients experienced pain, 74% fatigue, and 46% distress. Among those patients experiencing each symptom, 58% reported getting the help they wanted for pain, 40% for fatigue, and 45% for distress. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed that patients experiencing symptoms were significantly more likely to have talked about and received advice on coping with these symptoms. In addition, patients who were receiving or recently completed curative treatment reported more symptoms and better symptom care than did those who were further in time from curative treatment. CONCLUSION: In our sample, 30% to 50% of patients with cancer in community cancer centers did not report discussing, getting advice, or receiving desired help for pain, fatigue, or emotional distress. This finding suggests that there is room for improvement in the management of these three common cancer-related symptoms. Higher proportions of talk and advice among those experiencing symptoms imply that many discussions may be patient initiated. Lower rates of talk and advice among those who are further in time from treatment suggest the need for more assessment among longer-term survivors, many of whom continue to experience these symptoms. These findings seem to be especially important given the high prevalence of these symptoms in our sample.

Unique Review Criteria and Patient and Stakeholder Reviewers: Analysis of PCORI's Approach to Research Funding.

OBJECTIVE: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) uses a unique approach to Merit Review that includes patients and stakeholders as reviewers with scientists, and includes unique review criteria (patient-centeredness and active engagement of end users in the research). This study assessed the extent to which different reviewer types influence review scores and funding outcomes, the emphasis placed on technical merit compared to other criteria by a multistakeholder panel, and the impact of the in-person discussion on agreement among different reviewer types. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of administrative data from PCORI online and in-person Merit Review (N = 1312 applications from the five funding cycles from November 2013 to August 2015). Linear and logistic regression models were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: For all reviewer types, final review scores were associated with at least one review criterion score from each of the three reviewer types. The strongest predictor of final overall scores for all reviewer types was scientists' prediscussion ratings of technical merit. All reviewers' prediscussion ratings of the potential to improve health care and outcomes, and scientists' ratings of technical merit and patient-centeredness, were associated with funding success. For each reviewer type, overall impact scores from the online scoring were changed on at least half of the applications at the in-person panel discussion. Score agreement across reviewer types was greater after panel discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Scientist, patient, and stakeholder views all contribute to PCORI Merit Review of applications for research funding. Technical merit is critical to funding success but patient and stakeholder ratings of other criteria also influence application disposition.

Researchers, Patients, and Stakeholders Evaluating Comparative-Effectiveness Research: A Mixed-Methods Study of the PCORI Reviewer Experience.

OBJECTIVES: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) includes patients and stakeholders alongside scientists in reviewing research applications using unique review criteria including patient-centeredness and patient and/or stakeholder engagement. To support extension of this unique collaborative model to other funders, information from the reviewers on the review process is needed to understand how scientists and nonscientists evaluate research proposals together. Thus, this study aimed to describe reviewers' perspectives of the interactions during the in-person review panel; to examine the value and challenges of including scientists, patients, and stakeholders together; and to understand the perceived importance of PCORI's review criteria. METHODS: This study utilized anonymous, cross-sectional surveys (N = 925 respondents from 5 funding cycles: 470 scientists, 217 patients, 238 stakeholders; survey completion rates by cycle: 70-89%) and group interviews (N = 18). RESULTS: Reviewers of all types describe PCORI Merit Review as respectful, balanced, and one of reciprocal influence among different reviewer types. Reviewers indicate strong support and value of input from all reviewer types, receptivity to input from others, and the panel chair's incorporation of all views. Patients and stakeholders provide real-world perspectives on importance to patients, research partnership plans, and study feasibility. Challenges included concerns about a lack of technical expertise of patient/stakeholder reviewers and about scientists dominating conversations. The most important criterion for assigning final review scores was technical merit-either alone or in conjunction with patient-centeredness or patient/ stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSIONS: PCORI Merit Reviewers' self-reports indicate that the perspectives of different reviewer types are influential in panel discussions and Merit Review outcomes.

A Portfolio Analysis of Culturally Tailored Trials to Address Health and Healthcare Disparities.

In 2010, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was authorized by Congress to improve the quality and relevance of evidence available to help patients, caregivers, employers, insurers, and policy makers make better-informed health decisions. We conducted a qualitative analysis of behavioral health trials in the PCORI Addressing Disparities portfolio to examine cultural tailoring strategies across the following priority populations: racial and ethnic minorities, rural populations, people with low-income or low socioeconomic status, individuals with disabilities, people with low health literacy, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities. The Common Strategies for Enhancing Cultural Appropriateness model was used to examine cultural tailoring strategies within trials. We hypothesized increased intersectionality within a patient population at risk for disparities would correlate with the dosage and type of cultural tailoring strategies applied. Thirty-three behavioral health trials applied cultural tailoring strategies and a majority of trials (n = 30) used three or more strategies. Trends in cultural tailoring were associated with certain racial and ethnic groups; however, increased use of tailoring was not associated with the number of priority populations included in a trial. The PCORI Addressing Disparities portfolio demonstrates how a range of cultural tailoring strategies are used, within comparative clinical effectiveness research trials, to address the needs and intersectionality of patients to reduce health and healthcare disparities.

Introductory Overview of the Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2) Network: Examining the Impact of US Health Policies and Practices to Prevent Diabetes and Its Complications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes incidence is rising among vulnerable population subgroups including minorities and individuals with limited education. Many diabetes-related programs and public policies are unevaluated while others are analyzed with research designs highly susceptible to bias which can result in flawed conclusions. The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2) Network includes eight research centers and three funding agencies using rigorous methods to evaluate natural experiments in health policy and program delivery. RECENT FINDINGS: NEXT-D2 research studies use quasi-experimental methods to assess three major areas as they relate to diabetes: health insurance expansion; healthcare financing and payment models; and innovations in care coordination. The studies will report on preventive processes, achievement of diabetes care goals, and incidence of complications. Some studies assess healthcare utilization while others focus on patient-reported outcomes. NEXT-D2 examines the effect of public and private policies on diabetes care and prevention at a critical time, given ongoing and rapid shifts in the US health policy landscape.

Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE): A Cluster-Randomized Pragmatic Trial of a Multifactorial Fall Injury Prevention Strategy: Design and Methods.

Background: Fall injuries are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults. We describe the design of a pragmatic trial to compare the effectiveness of an evidence-based, patient-centered multifactorial fall injury prevention strategy to an enhanced usual care. Methods: Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) is a 40-month cluster-randomized, parallel-group, superiority, pragmatic trial being conducted at 86 primary care practices in 10 health care systems across United States. The 86 practices were randomized to intervention or control group using covariate-based constrained randomization, stratified by health care system. Participants are community-living persons, ≥70 years, at increased risk for serious fall injuries. The intervention is a comanagement model in which a nurse Falls Care Manager performs multifactorial risk assessments, develops individualized care plans, which include surveillance, follow-up evaluation, and intervention strategies. Control group receives enhanced usual care, with clinicians and patients receiving evidence-based information on falls prevention. Primary outcome is serious fall injuries, operationalized as those leading to medical attention (nonvertebral fractures, joint dislocation, head injury, lacerations, and other major sequelae). Secondary outcomes include all fall injuries, all falls, and well-being (concern for falling; anxiety and depressive symptoms; physical function and disability). Target sample size was 5,322 participants to provide 90% power to detect 20% reduction in primary outcome rate relative to control. Results: Trial enrolled 5,451 subjects in 20 months. Intervention and follow-up are ongoing. Conclusions: The findings of the STRIDE study will have important clinical and policy implications for the prevention of fall injuries in older adults.

Cancer Care Coordination: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 30 Years of Empirical Studies.

BACKGROUND: According to a landmark study by the Institute of Medicine, patients with cancer often receive poorly coordinated care in multiple settings from many providers. Lack of coordination is associated with poor symptom control, medical errors, and higher costs. PURPOSE: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to (1) synthesize the findings of studies addressing cancer care coordination, (2) describe study outcomes across the cancer continuum, and (3) obtain a quantitative estimate of the effect of interventions in cancer care coordination on service system processes and patient health outcomes. METHODS: Of 1241 abstracts identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. Each study had US or Canadian participants, comparison or control groups, measures, times, samples, and/or interventions. Two researchers independently applied a standardized search strategy, coding scheme, and online coding program to each study. Eleven studies met the additional criteria for the meta-analysis; a random effects estimation model was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Cancer care coordination approaches led to improvements in 81 % of outcomes, including screening, measures of patient experience with care, and quality of end-of-life care. Across the continuum of cancer care, patient navigation was the most frequent care coordination intervention, followed by home telehealth; nurse case management was third in frequency. The meta-analysis of a subset of the reviewed studies showed that the odds of appropriate health care utilization in cancer care coordination interventions were almost twice (OR = 1.9, 95 % CI = 1.5-3.5) that of comparison interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers promising findings on the impact of cancer care coordination on increasing value and reducing healthcare costs in the USA.

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP): Sustaining Quality and Reducing Disparities in Guideline-Concordant Breast and Colon Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot was designed to improve quality of cancer care and reduce disparities at community hospitals. The NCCCP's primary intervention was the implementation of the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System (RQRS). The RQRS is a hospital-based data collection and evaluation system allowing near real-time assessment of selected breast and colon cancer quality of care measures. Building on previous NCCCP analyses, this study examined whether improvements in quality cancer care within NCCCP hospitals early in the program were sustained and whether improvements were notable for minority or underserved populations. METHODS: We compared changes in concordance with three breast and two colon cancer quality measures approved by the National Quality Forum for patients diagnosed at NCCCP hospitals from 2006 to 2007 (pre-RQRS), 2008 to 2010 (early-RQRS), and 2011 to 2013 (later-RQRS). Data were obtained from NCCCP sites participating in the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of concordance with breast and colon cancer quality measures. RESULTS: The sample included 13,893 breast and 5,546 colon cancer patients. After RQRS initiation, all five quality measures improved significantly and improvements were sustained through 2013. Quality of care measures showed sustained improvements for both breast and colon cancer patients and for vulnerable patient subgroups including black, uninsured, and Medicaid-covered patients. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvements in NCCCP hospitals were sustained throughout the duration of the program, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. Because many individuals receive cancer treatment at community hospitals, facilitating high-quality care in these environments must be a priority. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Quality improvement programs often improve practice, but the methods are not maintained over time. The implementation of a real-time quality reporting system and a network focused on improving quality of care sustained quality improvement at select community cancer centers. The NCCCP pilot increased numbers of patients receiving guideline-concordant care for breast and colon cancer in community settings, and initial improvements noted in earlier years of RQRS were sustained into later years, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. National initiatives that improve care for diverse patient groups are important for reducing and eliminating barriers to care.

The development and acceptability of symptom management quality improvement reports based on patient-reported data: an overview of methods used in PROSSES.

PURPOSE: Patient experiences with symptom care need to be assessed and documented to ensure successful management of cancer-related symptoms. This paper details one method for creating symptom management quality improvement (SMQI) reports, including case-mix adjustment of patient-reported measures. Qualitative data regarding the acceptability of these reports at participating cancer centers (CCs) are also provided. METHODS: Data were collected from 2226 patients treated at 16 CCs via mailed/Web questionnaires. Twelve items assessing patient perceptions of symptom management-pain, fatigue, emotional distress-served as key quality indicators. Medico-demographic variables suitable for case-mix adjustment were selected using an index score combining predictive power and heterogeneity across CCs. SMQI reports were designed with staff feedback and produced for each CC, providing crude and adjusted CC-specific rates, along with study-wide rates for comparison purposes. RESULTS: Cancer type and participant educational level were selected for case-mix adjustment based upon high index scores. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient showed that case-mix adjustments changed the ranking of CCs on the key quality indicators (% Δ rank range: 5-22 %). The key quality indicators varied across CCs (all p < 0.02). SMQI reports were well received by CC staff, who described plans to share them with key personnel (e.g., cancer committee, navigator). CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides one method for creating hospital-level SMQI reports, including case-mix adjustment. Variation between CCs on key quality indicators, even after adjustment, suggested room for improvement. SMQI reports based on patient-reported data can inform and motivate efforts to improve care through professional/patient education and applying standards of care.

Variations in Oncologist Recommendations for Chemotherapy for Stage IV Lung Cancer: What Is the Role of Performance Status?

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy prolongs survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. However, few studies have included patients with poor performance status. This study examined rates of oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy by patient performance status and symptoms and how physician characteristics influence chemotherapy recommendations. METHODS: We surveyed medical oncologists involved in the care of a population-based cohort of patients with lung cancer from the CanCORS (Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance) study. Physicians were queried about their likelihood to recommend chemotherapy to patients with stage IV lung cancer with varying performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 [good] v 3 [poor]) and presence or absence of tumor-related pain. Repeated measures logistic regression was used to estimate the independent associations of patients' performance status and symptoms and physicians' demographic and practice characteristics with chemotherapy recommendations. RESULTS: Nearly all physicians (adjusted rate, 97% to 99%) recommended chemotherapy for patients with good performance status, and approximately half (adjusted rate, 38% to 53%) recommended chemotherapy for patients with poor performance status (P < .001). Compared with patient factors, physician and practice characteristics were less strongly associated with chemotherapy recommendations in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: Strong consensus among oncologists exists for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and good performance status. However, the relatively high rate of chemotherapy recommendations for patients with poor performance status despite the unfavorable risk-benefit profile highlights the need for ongoing work to define high-value care in oncology and to implement and evaluate strategies to align incentives for such care.

Revisiting the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Registry and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (SEER-MHOS) Linked Data Resource for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research in Older Adults with Cancer.

Researchers and clinicians are increasingly recognizing the value of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data to better characterize people's health and experiences with illness and care. Considering the rising prevalence of cancer in adults aged 65 and older, PRO data are particularly relevant for older adults with cancer, who often require complex cancer care and have additional comorbid conditions. A data linkage between the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry and the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) was created through a partnership between the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that created the opportunity to examine PROs in Medicare Advantage enrollees with and without cancer. The December 2013 linkage of SEER-MHOS data included the linked data for 12 cohorts, bringing the number of individuals in the linked data set to 95,723 with cancer and 1,510,127 without. This article reviews the features of the resource and provides information on some descriptive characteristics of the individuals in the data set (health-related quality of life, body mass index, fall risk management, number of unhealthy days in the past month). Individuals without (n=258,108) and with (n=3,440) cancer (1,311 men with prostate cancer, 982 women with breast cancer, 689 with colorectal cancer, 458 with lung cancer) were included in the current descriptive analysis. Given increasing longevity, advances in effective therapies and earlier detection, and population growth, the number of individuals aged 65 and older with cancer is expected to reach more than 12 million by 2020. SEER-MHOS provides population-level, self-reported, cancer registry-linked data for person-centered surveillance research on this growing population.

The rationale for patient-reported outcomes surveillance in cancer and a reproducible method for achieving it.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure quality of life, symptoms, patient functioning, and patient perceptions of care; they are essential for gaining a full understanding of cancer care and the impact of cancer on people's lives. Repeatedly captured facility-level and/or population-level PROs (PRO surveillance) could play an important role in quality monitoring and improvement, benchmarking, advocacy, policy making, and research. This article describes the rationale for PRO surveillance and the methods of the Patient Reported Outcomes Symptoms and Side Effects Study (PROSSES), which is the first PRO study to use the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer's Rapid Quality Reporting System to identify patients and manage study data flow. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Commission on Cancer, and RTI International collaborated on PROSSES. PROSSES was conducted at 17 cancer programs that participated in the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program among patients diagnosed with locoregional breast or colon cancer. The methods piloted in PROSSES were successful as demonstrated by high eligibility (93%) and response (61%) rates. Differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents were mostly negligible, with the exception that non-white individuals were somewhat less likely to respond. These methods were consistent across cancer centers and reproducible over time. If repeated and expanded, they could provide PRO surveillance data from patients with cancer on a national scale.

Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

IMPORTANCE: To integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). OBJECTIVE: To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). RESULTS: A total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants' median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P<.05 for all). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1 group (58 of 124, P<.05 for all). Overall, 119 of 124 items met at least 1 construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was 0.7 or greater for 36 of 49 prespecified items (median [range] intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76 [0.53-.96]). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes were statistically significant for 27 prespecified items (median [range] r=0.43 [0.10-.56]; all P≤.006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

Cancer Care Delivery Research: Building the Evidence Base to Support Practice Change in Community Oncology.

Understanding how health care system structures, processes, and available resources facilitate and/or hinder the delivery of quality cancer care is imperative, especially given the rapidly changing health care landscape. The emerging field of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) focuses on how organizational structures and processes, care delivery models, financing and reimbursement, health technologies, and health care provider and patient knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors influence cancer care quality, cost, and access and ultimately the health outcomes and well-being of patients and survivors. In this article, we describe attributes of CCDR, present examples of studies that illustrate those attributes, and discuss the potential impact of CCDR in addressing disparities in care. We conclude by emphasizing the need for collaborative research that links academic and community-based settings and serves simultaneously to accelerate the translation of CCDR results into practice. The National Cancer Institute recently launched its Community Oncology Research Program, which includes a focus on this area of research.

Patient Centeredness and Engagement in Quality-of-Care Oncology Research.

More than a decade after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) first studied the quality of cancer care, obstacles to achieving high-quality care remain, and studies suggest that cancer care is often not as patient centered, accessible, coordinated, or evidence based as it could be. Patients, their families, and clinicians face a wide range of complex and often confusing choices regarding their health and health care concerns and require trustworthy information to decide which options are best for them. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) strives to fund clinical comparative effectiveness research, guided by patients, caregivers, and the broader health care community, that will provide high-integrity, evidence-based information to help people make informed health care decisions. This mission is well aligned with the IOM's recent conceptual framework and corresponding recommendations that recognize that addressing the needs of patients with cancer and their families is the most important component of a high-quality cancer care delivery system. PCORI seeks the opportunity to partner with diverse interdisciplinary research teams who demonstrate a strong commitment to the inclusion and engagement of patients and stakeholders as they work to develop high-quality cancer care delivery systems. We see rich opportunities for such partnership in the cancer care community, given the wealth of well-established patient advocacy groups and organizations and cutting-edge research institutions, all of which are working toward the common goal of improving the quality of cancer care for patients and their families. This article and the project it describes provide an example of an avenue for advancing this goal.