Search

Purpose: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) plays an essential role in health outcomes and quality of life. However, it is often not assessed nor estimated. Objective CRF assessment is costly, labour intensive and not widely available. Patient-reported outcome measures estimate CRF more cost-efficiently, but current questionnaires lack accuracy. The aim of this study is to develop a new self-reported questionnaire to estimate CRF.

To take cancer survivorship research to the next level, it's important to gain insight in trajectories of changing patient-reported outcomes and impaired recovery after cancer. This is needed as the number of survivors is increasing and a large proportion is confronted with changing health after treatment. Mechanistic research can facilitate the development of personalized risk-stratified follow-up care and tailored interventions to promote healthy cancer survivorship. We describe how these trajectories can be studied by taking the recently extended Dutch population-based Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry as an example. PROFILES combines longitudinal assessment of patient-reported outcomes with novel, ambulatory and objective measures (eg, activity trackers, blood draws, hair samples, online food diaries, online cognitive tests, weighing scales, online symptoms assessment), and cancer registry and pharmacy databases. Furthermore, we discuss methods to optimize the use of a multidomain data collection-like return of individual results to participants, which may improve not only patient empowerment but also long-Term cohort retention. Also, advanced statistical methods are needed to handle high-dimensional longitudinal data (with missing values) and provide insight into trajectories of changing patient-reported outcomes after cancer. Our coded data can be used by academic researchers around the world. Registries like PROFILES, which go beyond boundaries of disciplines and institutions, will contribute to better predictions of who will experience changes and why. This is needed to prevent and mitigate long-Term and late effects of cancer treatment and to identify new interventions to promote health.

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care. Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266).

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients. The European Health Outcomes Observatory (H2O) initiative aimed to develop an updated patient-centered core outcome set (COS) for lung cancer, to capture the patient perspective of the impact of lung cancer and (novel) treatments using a combination of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and clinical data as a means to drive value-based health-care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An international, expert team of patient representatives, multidisciplinary healthcare professionals, academic researchers and pharmaceutical industry representatives (n = 17) reviewed potential outcomes generated through literature review. A broader group of patients/patient representatives (n = 31), healthcare professionals / academic researchers (n = 83), pharmaceutical industry representatives (n = 26), and health authority representatives (n = 6) participated in a Delphi study. In two survey rounds, participants scored the relevance of outcomes from a preliminary list. The threshold for consensus was defined as ≥ 70 % of participants scoring an outcome as 'highly relevant'. In concluding consensus-meeting rounds, the expert multidisciplinary team finalized the COS. RESULTS: The preliminary list defined by the core group consisted of 102 outcomes and was prioritized in the Delphi procedure to 64. The final lung cancer COS includes: 1) case-mix factors (n = 27); 2) PROs related to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (n = 25); 3) clinical outcomes (n = 12). Patient-reported symptoms beyond domains included in the ICHOM lung cancer set in 2016 were insomnia, nausea, vomiting, anxiety, depression, lack of appetite, gastric problems, constipation, diarrhoea, dysphagia, and haemoptysis. CONCLUSIONS: We will implement the lung cancer COS in Europe within the H2O initiative by collecting the outcomes