Search

Abstract Background Identification of exposures in patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) is essential for diagnosis and management and can be facilitated through the use of exposure questionnaires. However, for most ILDs, a patient-focused questionnaire is lacking. Cognitive interviewing is a methodology used to evaluate sources of understanding and misunderstanding in a questionnaire and to provide evidence of content validity. We developed and refined a new exposure questionnaire for patients with fibrotic ILDs by using cognitive interviewing to establish its understandability and content validity. Methods An exposure assessment questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. Cognitive interviews with 24 patients with fibrosing ILDs were conducted by trained interviewers over the phone or Zoom using a semi-structured interview guide. The questionnaire was amended based on the interviewers’ interpretation of sources of misunderstanding. The revised questionnaire was tested in a second round of cognitive interviews with a different group of 24 patients. Results Among the 48 patients who completed interviews, mean age was 61 years, 58.3% were male and 75.0% were white. Based on the first round of cognitive interviews, the multidisciplinary team modified the questions, organization, and instructions of the questionnaire to facilitate recall, adjust for exposures that were frequently misunderstood or required clarification, and focus on clinically relevant exposures. The revised questionnaire performed well in the second round of interviews. Conclusion An exposure questionnaire, developed with input from patients, can be used to assess clinically relevant exposures in adults with fibrosing ILDs. This is the first questionnaire for all types of fibrosing ILD to have undergone content validation.

Abstract Aims Caregivers rate improved communication ability as one of the most desired outcomes for successful interventions for individuals with Angelman syndrome (AS). When measuring communication ability in clinical trials, the reliability of such measures is critical for detecting significant changes over time. This study examined the reliability of the Observed-Reported Communication Ability (ORCA) measure completed by caregivers of individuals with AS. Methods The ORCA measure was completed by 249 caregivers with 170 caregivers completing the ORCA measure again after 5–12 days. Generalizability theory was used to examine the following sources of measurement error in ORCA scores: concepts, subdomains, assessment points, and the interactions among those facets and the object of measurement: communication ability. Three generalizability studies were conducted to understand the reliability of the ORCA measure for different measurement designs. Decision studies were carried out to demonstrate the optimization of measurement procedures of the ORCA measure. Results G and Phi coefficients of the original measurement design exceeded the 0.80 threshold considered sufficiently reliable to make relative and absolute decisions about the communication ability of individuals with AS based on their caregivers’ observed scores. The optimization procedures indicated that increasing the number of communication concepts and/or assessment points leads to more reliable estimates of communication. Conclusion The ORCA measure was able to reliably distinguish different levels of communication ability among individuals with AS. Multiple assessment points and or more concepts would provide more precise estimates of an individual’s communication ability but at the cost of survey fatigue.

Abstract Background & objectives Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) is an underdiagnosed and debilitating condition caused by a spinal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. Although SIH can lead to substantial morbidity and disability, little data exists about patients’ perspectives. Without hearing directly from patients, our understanding of the full experience of having SIH is limited, as is our ability to identify and use appropriate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) within clinical care and research. The purpose of this study was to conduct qualitative interviews with confirmed SIH patients to fully describe their experiences and identify relevant concepts to measure. Methods Patients were recruited from an SIH specialty clinic at a large, U.S.-based healthcare center. Patients undergoing an initial consultation who were ≥ 18 years old, English-speaking, met the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 criteria for SIH, and had a brain MRI with contrast that was positive for SIH were eligible to participate. During semi-structured qualitative interviews with a trained facilitator, participants were asked to describe their current SIH symptoms, how their experiences with SIH had changed over time, and the aspects of SIH that they found most bothersome. Analysts reviewed the data, created text summaries, and wrote analytic reports. Results Fifteen participants completed interviews. Common symptoms reported by patients included headache, tinnitus, ear fullness/pressure/pain, and neck or interscapular pain. Patients reported that their symptoms worsened over the course of their day and with activity. The most bothersome aspect of SIH was disruption to daily activities and limits to physical activities/exercise, which were severe. With regard to symptoms, the most bothersome and impactful included physical pain and discomfort (including headache), as well as fatigue. Conclusions Patients reported a diverse set of symptoms that were attributed to SIH, with devastating impacts on functioning and high levels of disability. Researchers considering use of PROMs for SIH should consider inclusion of both symptom scales and aspects of functioning, and future work should focus on evaluating the validity of existing measures for this patient population using rigorous qualitative and quantitative methods in diverse samples. Additionally, these data can be used to assist clinicians in understanding the impacts of SIH on patients.

Abstract Background The pediatric patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse event measure was developed and validated for use in pediatric cancer clinical trials to better capture the symptom experiences through direct self-report. The study aim was to develop and validate a Swahili language version of the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse event measure. Methods The pediatric version of 15 core symptom adverse events, and the corresponding questions, were selected from the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse event library, then forward and back translated into Swahili by bilingual translators. The translated items were further refined using concurrent cognitive interviewing. Each round of interviews included five children, ages 8–17 years-old, receiving cancer therapy at Bugando Medical Centre, the cancer referral hospital for Northwest Tanzania, and continued until at least 80% of participants understood the question. Results Three rounds of cognitive interviews were completed involving 13 patients and 5 caregivers. Among patients, 50% of questions (19/38) were fully comprehended after the first interview round. Two Adverse Events (anxiety and peripheral neuropathy) were the most difficult for participants to understand, associated with education level and experience. Goal comprehension was achieved after three rounds of interviews with no further revisions required. All parents in the first cognitive interview group comprehended the survey, with no additional revisions. Conclusion A Swahili patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse event was effective in eliciting patient-reported Adverse Events related to cancer treatment, with good comprehension for children aged 8–17 years. This survey is important to incorporate patient self-reporting of symptomatic toxicities and is an effective tool to increase capacity for pediatric cancer clinical trials throughout East Africa, further reducing global disparities in cancer care.

Introduction Less than 40% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC) in the USA receive stage-appropriate guideline-adherent surgery and chemotherapy. Black patients with cancer report greater depression, pain and fatigue than white patients. Lack of access to healthcare likely contributes to low treatment rates and racial differences in outcomes. The Ovarian Cancer Epidemiology, Healthcare Access and Disparities study aims to characterise healthcare access (HCA) across five specific dimensions—Availability, Affordability, Accessibility, Accommodation and Acceptability—among black, Hispanic and white patients with OC, evaluate the impact of HCA on quality of treatment, supportive care and survival, and explore biological mechanisms that may contribute to OC disparities.Methods and analysis We will use the Surveillance Epidemiology and Ends Results dataset linked with Medicare claims data from 9744 patients with OC ages 65 years and older. We will recruit 1641 patients with OC (413 black, 299 Hispanic and 929 white) from cancer registries in nine US states. We will examine HCA dimensions in relation to three main outcomes: (1) receipt of quality, guideline adherent initial treatment and supportive care, (2) quality of life based on patient-reported outcomes and (3) survival. We will obtain saliva and vaginal microbiome samples to examine prognostic biomarkers. We will use hierarchical regression models to estimate the impact of HCA dimensions across patient, neighbourhood, provider and hospital levels, with random effects to account for clustering. Multilevel structural equation models will estimate the total, direct and indirect effects of race on treatment mediated through HCA dimensions.Ethics and dissemination Result dissemination will occur through presentations at national meetings and in collaboration with collaborators, community partners and colleagues across othercancer centres. We will disclose findings to key stakeholders, including scientists, providers and community members. This study has been approved by the Duke Institutional Review Board (Pro00101872). Safety considerations include protection of patient privacy. All disseminated data will be deidentified and summarised.

Communication deficits have a substantial impact on quality of life for individuals with Angelman syndrome (AS) and their families, but limited qualitative work exists to support the necessary content of measures aiming to assess communication for these individuals. Following best practices for concept elicitation studies, we conducted individual qualitative interviews with caregivers and clinicians to elicit meaningful aspects of communication for individuals with AS. Caregivers were able to discuss their child's specific communication behaviors within a large number of expressive, receptive, and pragmatic functions via numerous symbolic and non-symbolic modalities. These results aligned well with published literature on communication in AS and will be used to inform the design of a novel caregiver-reported measure. Future studies on communication in individuals with AS should focus on gathering quantitative data from large samples of diverse caregivers, which would allow for estimations of the frequency of specific behaviors across the population., (©AAIDD.)

There is a critical need for high-quality clinical outcome assessments to capture the important aspects of communication ability of individuals with Angelman syndrome (AS). To center the perspective of caregivers, our team developed the novel Observer-Reported Communication Ability (ORCA) measure using best practice guidelines, with the goal of developing a measure that could be administered to caregivers directly without the need for a certified administrator for use in clinical trials. To refine the draft measure, we conducted two rounds of cognitive interviews with 24 caregivers and a quantitative study including 249 caregivers. The results from both studies support the overall content validity, construct validity, and the reliability of the ORCA measure for individuals with AS > 2 years old for use in research contexts. Future work should explore the responsiveness of ORCA measures to changes over time in a diverse sample., (©AAIDD.)