Search

Improvements in cancer care delivery have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality from cancer, however, challenges to delivery of recommended care limit progress. These challenges include growing demands for care, increasing treatment complexity, inadequate care coordination, dramatic increases in costs, persistent disparities in care, and insufficient use of evidence-based guidelines. Recognizing the important role of research in understanding and addressing these challenges, the National Cancer Institute created the Healthcare Delivery Research Program (HDRP) in 2015 as a catalyst for expanding work in this area. Health-care delivery research is a multidisciplinary effort which recognizes that care delivery occurs in a multilevel system encompassing individuals, health-care systems, and communities. HDRP staff use a range of activities to fulfill the program’s mission of advancing innovative research to improve delivery of care across the cancer control continuum. In addition to developing funding opportunities, HDRP staff; support and facilitate the use of research infrastructure for conducting health-care delivery research; oversee publicly available data that can be used to evaluate patterns, costs, and patient experiences of care; contribute to development and dissemination of standardized health measurement tools for public use; and support professional development and training to build capacity within the field and grow the workforce. As HDRP enters its sixth year, we appreciate the opportunity to reflect on the program’s progress in advancing the science of health-care delivery. At the same time, we recognize the need for the program to evolve and develop additional resources and opportunities to address new and emerging challenges.

There is rapidly growing interest in the capture of person-centered outcomes in clinical and population-based research and in healthcare delivery settings. Stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, payers, regulators, researchers) increasingly agree that person-centered outcome measurement can accelerate the development of new knowledge, improve the efficiency and quality of care, and may also contribute to clinician or health system performance metrics and regulatory review of new therapies [1–3]. These outcomes may be incorporated into both observational studies and clinical trials, and provide salient endpoints in trials of preventive or disease-modifying treatments, as well as behavioral or psychosocial interventions. Over the past decade, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has invested in the development and evaluation of several measurement systems that are now available for research and clinical use. These include the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) [4], the NIH Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIH Toolbox®) [5], the Quality of Life Outcomes in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL) [6], Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement Information System (ASCQ-Me) [7], and the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) [8]. In this paper, we (i) describe each system; (ii) highlight considerations in the design and interpretation of studies that employ one or more of these systems; and (iii) summarize future directions for continued implementation of these systems in clinical practice, population-based research, observational studies, and clinical trials.

Introduction The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)® Sexual Function and Satisfaction measure (SexFS) version 1.0 was developed with cancer populations. There is a need to expand the SexFS and provide evidence of its validity in diverse populations. Aim The aim of this study was to describe the development of the SexFS v2.0 and present preliminary evidence for its validity. Methods Development built on version 1.0, plus additional review of extant items, discussions with 15 clinical experts, 11 patient focus groups (including individuals with diabetes, heart disease, anxiety, depression, and/or are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or aged 65 or older), 48 cognitive interviews, and psychometric evaluation in a random sample of U.S. adults plus an oversample for specific sexual problems (2281 men, 1686 women). We examined differential item functioning (DIF) by gender and sexual activity. We examined convergent and known-groups validity. Results The final set of domains includes 11 scored scales (interest in sexual activity, lubrication, vaginal discomfort, clitoral discomfort, labial discomfort, erectile function, orgasm ability, orgasm pleasure, oral dryness, oral discomfort, satisfaction), and six nonscored item pools (screeners, sexual activities, anal discomfort, therapeutic aids, factors interfering with sexual satisfaction, bother). Domains from version 1.0 were reevaluated and improved. Domains considered applicable across gender and sexual activity status, namely interest, orgasm, and satisfaction, were found to have significant DIF. We identified subsets of items in each domain that provided consistent measurement across these important respondent groups. Convergent and known-groups validity was supported. Conclusions The SexFS version 2.0 has several improvements and enhancements over version 1.0 and other extant measures, including expanded evidence for validity, scores centered around norms for sexually active U.S. adults, new domains, and a final set of items applicable for both men and women and those sexually active with a partner and without. The SexFS is customizable, allowing users to select relevant domains and items for their study.

Adolescent and young adults (AYAs) face challenges in having their cancers recognized, diagnosed, treated, and monitored. Monitoring AYA cancer survival is of interest because of the lack of improvement in outcome previously documented for these patients as compared with younger and older patient outcomes. AYA patients 15–39 years old, diagnosed during 2000–2008 with malignant cancers were selected from the SEER 17 registries data. Selected cancers were analyzed for incidence and five-year relative survival by histology, stage, and receptor subtypes. Hazard ratios were estimated for cancer death risk among younger and older ages relative to the AYA group. AYA survival was worse for female breast cancer (regardless of estrogen receptor status), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). AYA survival for AML was lowest for a subtype associated with a mutation of the nucleophosmin 1 gene (NPM1). AYA survival for breast cancer and leukemia remain poor as compared with younger and older survivors. Research is needed to address disparities and improve survival in this age group.