Search

Background: Patient-reported physical function (PF) is a key endpoint in cancer clinical trials. Using complex statistical methods, common metrics have been developed to compare scores from different patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, but such methods do not account for possible differences in questionnaire content. Therefore, the aim of our study was a content comparison of frequently used PRO measures for PF in cancer patients. Methods: Relying on the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) we categorized the item content of the physical domains of the following measures: EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, PROMIS Cancer Item Bank for Physical Function, PROMIS Short Form for Physical Function 20a, and the FACT-G. Item content was linked to ICF categories by two independent reviewers. Results: The 118 items investigated were assigned to 3 components (‘d – Activities and Participation’, ‘b – Body Functions’, and ‘e – Environmental Factors’) and 11 first-level ICF categories. All PF items of the EORTC measures but one were assigned to the first-level ICF categories ‘d4 – Mobility’ and ‘d5 – Self-care’, all within the component ‘d – Activities and Participation’. The SF-36 additionally included item content related to ‘d9 – Community, social and civic life’ and the PROMIS Short Form for Physical Function 20a also included content related to ‘d6 – domestic life’. The PROMIS Cancer Item Bank (v1.1) covered, in addition, two first-level categories within the component ‘b – Body Functions’. The FACT-G Physical Well-being scale was found to be the most diverse scale with item content partly not covered by the ICF framework. Discussion: Our results provide information about conceptual differences between common PRO measures for the assessment of PF in cancer patients. Our results complement quantitative information on psychometric characteristics of these measures and provide a better understanding of the possibilities of establishing common metrics.

ObjectiveTo investigate cancer patients’ understanding of graphical presentations of longitudinal EORTC QLQ-C30 scores.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with brain tumour patients participating in routine patient-reported outcome (PRO) monitoring. We assessed understanding of longitudinal quality of life (QOL) profiles, presented as bar charts objectively and with self-ratings. In addition, patients’ opinions on congruency of the QOL scores with their self-perceived health status were evaluated.ResultsWe recruited 40 brain tumour patients (57.5% female; mean age 52.7, SD 13.7). In total, 90% of patients rated the graphs as easy to understand. Accordingly, almost all questions on assessing understanding objectively were answered correctly by at least 80% of the patients. More than 95% indicated that the displayed QOL scores matched their personal perception of symptom burden and functional health in the observed period.ConclusionPatients are able to understand their QOL results when presented graphically and are able to interpret important changes. Displayed QOL scores obtained with the EORTC QLQ-C30 are consistent with the patients’ personal perception of physical and emotional functioning, pain and fatigue.Practice implicationsKnowledge about patients’ understanding of graphically displayed QOL results contributes to creation of optimal evidence-based feedback on the patients’ present QOL and its trajectory.

Purpose: To investigate patients’ and health professionals’ understanding of and preferences for different graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Methods: We recruited cancer patients (any treatment and diagnosis) in four European countries and health professionals in the Netherlands. Using a questionnaire, we assessed objective and self-rated understanding of QLQ-C30 scores and preferences for five presentation styles (bar and line charts, with or without color coding, and a heat map). Results: In total, 548 patients and 227 health professionals participated. Eighty-three percent of patients and 85 % of professionals self-rated the graphs as very or quite easy to understand; this did not differ between graphical presentation styles. The mean percentage of correct answers to questions objectively assessing understanding was 59 % in patients, 78 % in medical specialists, and 74 % in other health professionals. Objective understanding did not differ between graphical formats in patients. For non-colored charts, 49.8 % of patients did not have a preference. Colored bar charts (39 %) were preferred over heat maps (20 %) and colored line charts (12 %). Medical specialists preferred heat maps (46 %) followed by non-colored bar charts (19 %), whereas these charts were equally valued by other health professionals (both 32 %). Conclusion: The substantial discrepancy between participants’ high self-rated and relatively low objective understanding of graphical presentation of PRO results highlights the need to provide sufficient guidance when presenting such results. It may be appropriate to adapt the presentation of PRO results to individual preferences. This could be facilitated when PROs are administered and presented to patients and health professionals electronically.