Search

Additional file 1. Data Extraction Form.

Additional file 2. Baseline Provider Survey.

Additional file 5: Appendix A. Additional Details on Construction of the Integration Indexes. Appendix B. Association Between NURHI Intervention and Other Facility Characteristics and Provider and Facility Integration Index Scores.

Additional file 4. Endline Provider Survey.

Additional file 3. Endline Health Facility Audit.

Additional file 1. Baseline Health Facility Audit.

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-ctj-10.1177_1740774520975120 for Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) by Ethan Basch, Claus Becker, Lauren J Rogak, Deborah Schrag, Bryce B Reeve, Patricia Spears, Mary Lou Smith, Mrinal M Gounder, Michelle R Mahoney, Gary K Schwartz, Antonia V Bennett, Tito R Mendoza, Charles S Cleeland, Jeff A Sloan, Deborah Watkins Bruner, Gisela Schwab, Thomas M Atkinson, Gita Thanarajasingam, Monica M Bertagnolli and Amylou C Dueck in Clinical Trials

Outcome measures for embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) should reflect the lived experience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, yet patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes (PCROs) are rarely available in large clinical and administrative data sources. Although pragmatic methods may lead to use of existing administrative data rather than new data collected directly from PLWD, interventions are truly impactful only when they change outcomes prioritized by PLWD and their caregivers. The Patient- and Caregiver-Reported Outcomes Core (PCRO Core) of the IMbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and AD-Related Dementias Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory aims to promote optimal use of outcomes relevant to PLWD and their caregivers in pragmatic trials. The PCRO Core will address key scientific challenges limiting outcome measurement, such as gaps in existing measures, methodologic constraints, and burdensome data capture. PCRO Core investigators will create a searchable library of AD/AD-related dementias (ADRD) clinical outcome measures, including measures in existing data sources with potential for AD/ADRD ePCTs, and will support best practices in measure development, including pragmatic adaptation of PCROs. Working together with other Cores and Teams within the IMPACT Collaboratory, the PCRO Core will support investigators to select from existing outcome measures, and to innovate in methods for measurement and data capture. In the future, the work of the IMPACT Collaboratory may galvanize broader embedded use of outcomes that matter to PLWD and their care partners in large health systems. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S55-S61, 2020.

IMPORTANCE: Persons living with serious illness often need skilled symptom management, communication, and spiritual support. Palliative care addresses these needs and may be delivered by either specialists or clinicians trained in other fields. It is important to understand core elements of palliative care to best provide patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: To describe frequency, predictors, and timing of core elements of palliative care during the last 6 months of life. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Inpatient academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Decedents with cancer, dementia, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) admitted during the 6 months preceding death. EXPOSURES: We identified receipt and timing of core elements of palliative care: pain and symptom management, goals of care, spiritual care; and specialty palliative care utilization; hospital encounters; demographics; and comorbid diagnoses.We ran Poisson regression models to assess whether diagnosis or hospital encounters were associated with core elements of palliative care. RESULTS: Among 402 decedents, themean (SD) number of appropriately screened and treated symptoms was 2.9 (1.7)/10. Among 76.1% with documented goals of care, 58.0% had a primary goal of comfort; 55.0% had documented spiritual care. In multivariable models, compared with decedents with cancer, those with dementia or CKD were less likely to have pain and symptom management (respectively, 31% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56���0.85) and 17% (IRR, 0.83; CI, 0.71���0.97)). There was amedian of 3 days (IQR, 0���173) between transition to a goal of comfort and death, and amedian of 12 days (IQR, 5���47) between hospice referral and death. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although a high proportion of patients received elements of palliative care, transitions to a goal of comfort or hospice happened very near death. Palliative care delivery can be improved by systematizing existing mechanisms, including prompts for earlier goals-of-care discussion, symptom screening, and spiritual care, and by building collaboration between primary and specialty palliative care services.

Patient-reported health data provide information for pragmatic clinical trials that may not be readily available from electronic health records or administrative claims data. In this report, we present key considerations for collecting patient-reported health information in pragmatic clinical trials, which are informed by best practices from patient-reported outcome research. We focus on question design and administration via electronic data collection platforms with respect to 3 types of patient-reported health data: medication use, utilization of health care services, and comorbid conditions. We summarize key scientific literature on the accuracy of these patient-reported data compared with electronic health record data. We discuss question design in detail, specifically defining the concept to be measured, patient understanding of the concept, recall periods of the question, and patient willingness to report. In addition, we discuss approaches for question administration and data collection platforms, which are key aspects of successful patient-reported data collection.

There are uncertainties about prostate cancer���related anxiety's (PCRA) associations with health���related quality of life (HRQOL) and major depression, and these could affect the quality of mental healthcare provided to prostate cancer patients. Addressing these uncertainties will provide more insight into PCRA and inform further research on the value of PCRA prevention. The goals of this study were to measure associations between PCRA and HRQOL at domain and subdomain levels, and to evaluate the association between PCRA and probable (ie, predicted major) depression.

Context. Low utilization of palliative care services warrant testing of new solutions to educate and engage patients around the benefits of palliative care. Objectives. We sought out to develop and test a novel, mobile health solution to prepare patients for an upcoming outpatient palliative care appointment. Methods. After developing a web-based tool called PCforMe (Palliative Care for Me), we conducted a randomized, active controlled, trial of PCforMe. The primary outcome was the score on the System Usability Scale (SUS). Secondary outcomes were patient self-efficacy and change in knowledge. We compared PCforMe to three common online resources for patients seeking information about palliative care. Results. A total of 80 patients were randomized. There were no significant demographic differences. Mean SUS score for PCforMe was 78.2, significantly above the normative average SUS score of 68 (P-value < 0.0001). Mean change in Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions score was -2.2 for PCforMe and -1.7 for control group (P-value �� 0.72). Preparedness for an upcoming palliative care visit increased 50% in the intervention group and 13.3% in the control group. Difference in the number of patients with improved knowledge regarding palliative care approached significance (P = 0.06). Lastly, we found that the no-show rate was lower during Q1 2017 (during trial) and Q1 2016 (before trial), at 11.7% and 21%, respectively (P < 0.05). Comparing the full calendar year (CY) 2016 with 2017, we did not find a statistical difference (CY 2016 of 18.8% and 15% in CY 2017; P = 0.22). Conclusion. PCforMe is a usable mobile health tool to prepare patients for an upcoming palliative care appointment. Further research is needed to test effectiveness.

Background: Stable angina patients have difficulty understanding the tradeoffs between treatment alternatives. In this analysis, we assessed treatment planning conversations for stable angina to determine whether inadequate health literacy acts as a barrier to communication that may partially explain this difficulty. Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of patient questionnaire data from the PCI Choice Trial. The main outcomes were the responses to the Decisional Conflict Scale and the proportion of correct responses to knowledge questions about stable angina. We also conducted a qualitative analysis on recordings of patient-clinician discussions about treatment planning. The recordings were coded with the OPTION12 instrument for shared decision-making. Two analysts independently assessed the number and types of patient questions and expressions of preferences. Results: Patient engagement did not differ by health literacy level and was generally low for all patients with respect to OPTION12 scores and the number of questions related to clinical aspects of treatment. Patients with inadequate health literacy had significantly higher decisional conflict. However, the proportion of knowledge questions answered correctly did not differ significantly by health literacy level. Conclusions: Patients with inadequate health literacy had greater decisional conflict but no difference in knowledge compared to patients with adequate health literacy. Inadequate health literacy may act as a barrier to communication, but gaps were found in patient engagement and knowledge for patients of all health literacy levels. The recorded patient-clinician encounters and the health literacy measure were valuable resources for conducting research on care delivery.

Aims���The U.S. National Cancer Institute recently developed the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g., nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-week, 2-week, 3-week, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods���English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four U.S. cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-week, 2-week, 3-week, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g., maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs. 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results���127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size), was ���0.20 (���0.20) for 1-week recall; ���0.36 (���0.31) for 2-week recall; ���0.45 (���0.39) for 3-week recall; and ���0.47 (���0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54���0.82); 2-week recall: 0.74 (range: 0.58���0.83); 3-week recall: 0.72 (range: 0.61���0.84); and 4-week recall: 0.72 (range: 0.64���0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusions���1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.

Aims We evaluated pedometry as a novel patient-centered outcome because it enables passive continuous assessment of activity and may provide information about the consequences of symptomatic toxicity complementary to self-report. Methods Adult patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) wore pedometers and completed PRO assessments during transplant hospitalization (4 weeks) and 4 weeks post-discharge. Patient reports of symptomatic treatment toxicities (single items from PROCTCAE, http://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/pro-ctcae) and symptoms, physical health, mental health, and quality of life (PROMIS Global-10, http://nih.promis.org), assessed weekly with 7-day recall on Likert scales, were compared individually with pedometry data, summarized as average daily steps per week, using linear mixed models. Results Thirty-two patients [mean age 55 (SD = 14), 63 % male, 84 % white, 56 % autologous, 43 % allogeneic] completed a mean 4.6 (SD = 1.5, range 1���8) evaluable assessments. Regression model coefficients (��) indicated within-person decrements in average daily steps were associated with increases in pain (�� = -852; 852 fewer steps per unit increase in pain score, p