Search

Context: Among patients with advanced life-limiting illness, an inaccurate understanding of prognosis is common and associated with negative outcomes. Recent years have seen an emergence of new interventions tested for their potential to improve prognostic understanding. However, this literature has yet to be synthesized.Objectives: To identify and characterize tested interventions, summarize intervention findings, and outline directions for future research.Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in five databases - PubMed/MEDLINE (NLM), EMBASE (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (OVID), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) - to identify interventions evaluated within a randomized controlled design for their impact on prognostic understanding.Results: Of the 2354 initial articles, 12 were selected for final inclusion, representing nine unique interventions. Intervention types included decision aids accompanying medical consults, palliative care consultations, communication training for patients and physicians, and targeted discussions regarding prognosis and treatment decision making. Common components of interventions included provision of prognostic information, assistance with end-of-life care planning, and provision of decisional and emotional support during discussions. Most interventions were associated with some indication of improvement in prognostic understanding. However, even after intervention, inaccurate prognostic understanding was common, with 31-95 percent of patients in intervention groups exhibiting inaccurate perceptions of their prognosis.Conclusion: Prognostic understanding interventions hold the potential to improve patient understanding and thus informed decision making, but limitations exist. Future research should examine why many patients receiving intervention may continue to maintain inaccurate perceptions, and identify which intervention components can best enhance informed, value-consistent decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to monitor treatment-related symptoms and physical function decrements in cancer clinical trials. As more patients enter survivorship, it is important to capture PRO physical function throughout trials to help restore pretreatment levels of function. We completed a systematic review of PRO physical function measures used in cancer clinical trials and evaluated their psychometric properties on the basis of guidelines from the US Food and Drug Administration. Five databases were searched through October 2015: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane. From an initial total of 10,233 articles, we identified 108 trials that captured PRO physical function. Within these trials, approximately 67% used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and 25% used the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36. Both the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 instruments generically satisfy most Food and Drug Administration requirements, although neither sought direct patient input as part of item development. The newer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function short form may be a brief, viable alternative. Clinicians should carefully consider the psychometric properties of these measures when incorporating PRO instrumentation into clinical trial design to provide a more comprehensive understanding of patient function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria.Results: Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (n = 21).Conclusions: The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article will describe a year-long (2010–11) joint project between Columbia University Medical Center's Health Sciences Library and the Institute for Family Health (IFH), a network of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serving disadvantaged populations in New York State. This National Institutes of Health-funded pilot project aimed to (a) determine the medical literature and training needs of IFH personnel, (b) develop generic licensing agreements with publishers that would enable a health sciences library to provide access to electronic resources for FQHC personnel, and (c) develop reference/education services for IFH personnel. How the reference and education aims were met will be described and discussed here as the lessons learned from this project may be useful to librarians considering doing instructional outreach to unaffiliated health professionals working at FQHCs nationwide. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]