Search

Rationale: The shift toward virtual academic detailing (AD) was accelerated by the COVID‐19 pandemic. Aims and Objectives: We aimed to examine the role of external, contextual, and intrinsic programme‐specific factors in virtual engagement of healthcare providers (HCPs) and delivery of AD. Methods: AD groups throughout North America were contacted to participate in semistructured interviews. An interview guide was constructed by adapting the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A point of emphasis included strategies AD groups employed for provider engagement while implementing virtual AD programmes. Independent coders conducted qualitative analysis using the framework method. Results: Fifteen AD groups from Canada (n = 3) and the United States (n = 12) participated. Technological issues and training detailers and HCPs were challenges during the transition to virtual AD visits. Restrictions on in‐person activities during the pandemic created difficulties engaging HCPs and fewer AD visits. Continuing education was one strategy to incentivize participation, but credits were often not claimed by HCPs. Groups with established networks and prior experience with virtual AD leveraged connections to mitigate disruptions and continue AD visits. Other facilitators included emphasizing contemporary topics, including opioid education beyond fundamental guidelines. Virtual AD had the additional benefit of expanding geographic reach and flexible scheduling with providers. Conclusions: AD groups across North America have shifted to virtual outreach and delivery strategies. This trend toward virtual AD may aid outreach to vulnerable rural communities, improving health equity. More research is needed on the effectiveness of virtual AD and its future implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed the content validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based measures (PBMs) with patients treated for cancer, evaluated against 10 Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity, to best inform measurement strategies regarding the use of PBMs in oncology development programs and real-world applications. Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients who received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom (n = 47) and the United States (n = 49). During the interview, patients completed 3 generic PBMs (EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure–Short Form, Château Santé Base) and 2 condition-specific PBMs (Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension [FACT-8D]). Interviews were conducted via teleconference, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using thematic and content analysis methods. Condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Overall, the FACT-8D was evaluated as holding the best content validity in terms of relevancy, and the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure–Short Form received the most favorable evaluation of relevancy for generic PBMs. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, with all suggested by patients to be missing concepts. The EQ-5D-5L was evaluated best in terms of comprehensibility. This was followed by the Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension and FACT-8D; both received similar evaluations. All measures were generally seen by patients as adequate in capturing appropriate aspects of health-related quality of life for measuring cancer outcomes, although together condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Further health-related quality of life instrument development is encouraged, particularly with regard to the longer-term detrimental impacts of cancer and treatment side effects. Other developments could include new cancer-specific tools inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items. • Generic preference-based measures (PBMs) are recommended to assess patient-reported outcomes across interventions and to allow for comparative assessments across unrelated health conditions and interventions. Generic PBMs may exclude dimensions relevant to specific conditions, whereas condition-specific PBMs can contain items related to specific symptoms. Recent work has identified several concepts that are relevant to health-related quality of life and psychological wellbeing, which are not measured by existing outcome measures. • Patients who had received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom and the United States evaluated 3 generic and 2 condition-specific PBMs during qualitative interviews. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, missing concepts considered by patients as important to measure for their cancer and cancer treatment experiences. Language and format were frequently challenged, with patients suggesting changes to multiple items across all measures. Recall periods were frequently raised as problematic because of the substantial variation in cancer symptoms within a given day or week. • Given the burden of cancer symptoms and drug treatment effects, capturing all relevant outcomes of people with cancer is necessary to inform accurate decision making for cancer technologies. Modification of existing measures should be considered with regard to measurement gaps identified. New cancer-specific tools could be considered, inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items. These developments have a large potential for impact given the high proportions of oncology health technology assessment submissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Several measures have been used or developed to capture the health and well-being of caregivers, including the EQ Health and Well-being (EQ-HWB) and its short form, EQ-HWB-S. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties and construct validity of the EQ-HWB/EQ-HWB-S in a US caregiver population., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted involving 504 caregivers. Eligible participants were 18+ years old, provided unpaid care to a relative/friend aged 18+ in the past 6 months, and spent on average of at least 1 hour per week caregiving. Survey included the following measures: EQ-HWB, Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers-Carer, CarerQol, and EQ-5D-5L. Psychometric properties were assessed using response distributions, floor/ceiling effects, Spearman's correlation for convergent validity, and effect sizes (ES) for known-group validity based on caregiving situations and intensity., Results: The average age of caregivers was 49.2 (SD = 15.4), with 57.5% being female. More than half (54.4%) reported high caregiving intensity, and 68.3% lived with the care recipient. The EQ-HWB-S index showed a strong positive correlation with the EQ-5D-5L (r s  = 0.72), Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (r s  = 0.54), and CarerQol (r s  = 0.54) indices. Notably, the EQ-HWB-S index showed the largest ES among measures in differentiating caregiving scenarios with a large ES for caregiver's general health (d = 1.00) and small ES for caregiving intensity (d = 0.39)., Conclusions: Results support construct validity of EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S as measures for assessing health and well-being of adult informal caregivers in comparison with other validated instruments. Differing levels of known-group validity across anchors emphasize the importance of selecting appropriate measures for caregivers, depending on research question and/or intervention aims., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Caregiver burden (CB) is typically self-assessed by caregivers. However, an emerging concept is assessment of CB by the recipients of care, i.e., the patient. The specific objectives are (1) to assess the level of agreement between care recipients' and caregivers' view on CB, across financial, physical, emotional, and social domains; (2) to explore two care recipient perspectives: their self-perceived burden (CR-SPB), and their interpretation of the caregiver's view (Proxy-CB)., Methods: Data were collected from 504 caregiver-care recipient dyads in the U.S. using an online Qualtrics panel. The survey assessed caregiver burden using CarerQol and newly developed items. The level of agreement between responses was quantified using weighted kappa (κ) coefficients for individual items and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for index/summary scores., Results: The average age of caregivers was 49.2 years, and 62.7 years for care recipients. Dyads most commonly consisted of spouses/partners (34.5%); 68.3% lived together. Proxy-CB aligned more closely with caregiver's view, with moderate to substantial agreement across CB domains (from κ = 0.48 for emotional to κ = 0.66 for financial). In the same perspective, the CarerQol-7D Index showed moderate agreement (ICC = 0.58) and the summary score of CB items substantial agreement (ICC = 0.76). Care recipients generally overestimated  CB in the Proxy-CB perspective, while they underestimated it in the CR-SPB perspective., Conclusion: Results demonstrate there is a difference between perspectives. Strong agreement in Proxy-CB perspective suggests that care recipients can potentially substitute for caregivers depending on the domain. CR-SPB agrees less with caregivers and may provide complementary information., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Only one pilot value set (UK) is currently available for the EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument short version (EQ-HWB-S). As an alternative to preference-weighted scoring, we examined whether a level summary score (LSS) is appropriate for the EQ-HWB-S using Mokken scaling analyses., Methods: Data from patients, carers and the general population collected during the developmental phase of the EQ-HWB-S in Australia, US and UK were used, noting 3 of 9 items have since undergone revision. EQ-HWB-S data fit was examined using R package Mokken scaling's monotone homogeneity model, utilizing the automated item selection procedure (AISP) as well as Loevinger's scaling coefficients for items and the scale (H S ). Manifest monotonicity was assessed by examining whether the cumulative probability for responses at or above each response level did not decrease across the summary score., Results: EQ-HWB-S data were available for 3340 respondents: US = 903, Australia = 514 and UK = 1923. Mean age was 50 ± 18 and 1841 (55%) were female. AISP placed all 9 items of the EQ-HWB-S on a single scale when the lower bound was set to < 0.448. Strong scalability (H S  = 0.561) was found for the EQ-HWB-S as a single scale. Stronger scales were formed by separating the psychosocial items (n = 6, H S  = 0.683) and physical sensation items (n = 3, H S  = 0.713). No violations of monotonicity were found except for the items mobility and daily activities for the subgroups with long-term conditions and UK subjects, respectively., Discussion: As EQ-HWB-S items formed a strong scale and subscales based on Mokken analysis, LSS is a promising weighting-free approach to scoring., (© 2024. The Author(s).)