Search

Purpose: The aims of the Advocate-BREAST project are to study and improve the breast cancer (BC) patient experience through education and patient-centered research. Methods: In December 2021, an electronic REDCap survey was circulated to 6,918 BC survivors (stage 0–4) enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry. The questionnaire asked about satisfaction with BC care delivery, and education and support receive(d) regarding BC linked concerns. Patients also ranked Quality Improvement (QI) proposals. Results: The survey received 2,437 responses. 18% had Ductal Carcinoma in Situ, 81% had early breast cancer (EBC), i.e. stage 1–3, and 2% had metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Mean age was 64 (SD 11.8), and mean time since diagnosis was 93 months (SD 70.2). 69.3% of patients received all care at Mayo Clinic. The overall experience of care was good (> 90%). The main severe symptoms recalled in year 1 were alopecia, eyebrow/eyelash thinning, hot flashes, sexual dysfunction, and cognitive issues. The main concerns recalled were fear of BC recurrence/spread; loved ones coping; fear of dying, and emotional health. Patients were most dissatisfied with information regarding sexual dysfunction, eyebrow/eyelash thinning, peripheral neuropathy, and on side effects of immunotherapy/targeted therapies. Top ranking QI projects were: i) Lifetime access to concise educational resources; ii) Holistic support programs for MBC and iii) Wellness Programs for EBC and MBC. Conclusions: Patients with early and advanced BC desire psychological support, concise educational resources, and holistic care. Implications: Focused research and QI initiatives in these areas will improve the BC patient experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The high-level aims of the Advocate-BREAST initiative are to study and improve the overall experience of patients with breast cancer (BC) through education, shared decision making, and patient-centered clinical trials. Advocate-BREAST80+ is a survey substudy that specifically focused on the unique needs and perspectives of BC patients aged ≥80 years. Although patients aged ≥80 years experienced less anxiety and symptom-related distress compared with younger patients, they were significantly less satisfied with information regarding short and long term side effects of BC therapies, as well as the management of same. Older patients were significantly less likely to have participated in a clinical trial or be open to considering this option in future. Future research should address unique educational needs and barriers to research participation in older BC patients. Focused interviews could assist with better comprehension of the lived experience of these patients, given the smaller number of BC patients ≥80 years in many available databases. Background: There are limited evidence-based data to guide treatment recommendations for breast cancer (BC) patients ≥80 years (P80+). Identifying and addressing unmet needs are critical. Aims: Advocate-BREAST80+ compared the needs of P80+ vs. patients < 80 years (P80−). Methods: In 12/2021, a REDCap survey was electronically circulated to 6918 persons enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry. The survey asked about concerns and satisfaction with multiple aspects of BC care. Results: Overall, 2437 participants responded (35% response rate); 202 (8.3%) were P80+. P80+ were less likely to undergo local regional and systemic therapies vs. P80− (p < 0.01). Notably, P80+ were significantly less satisfied with information about the short and long-term side effects of BC therapies and managing toxicities. P80+ were also less likely to have participated in a clinical trial (p < 0.001) or to want to do so in the future (p = 0.0001). Conclusions: Although P80+ experienced less anxiety and symptom-related distress compared with P80−, they were significantly less satisfied with information regarding the side effects of BC therapies and their management. P80+ were significantly less likely to have participated in a clinical trial or be open to considering this option. Future studies should address educational needs pertaining to side effects and barriers to research participation in P80+. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients are ultimately the end-users of medical therapies and need to be actively integrated as contributors and decision-makers in the process of product development throughout product lifecycles. This is increasingly being recognized by patients, investigators, regulators, payers, sponsors, and medical journals. However, cardiovascular research remains behind other fields in terms of the extent of patient involvement and awareness of clinical trials in cardiovascular research. True patient partnerships in cardiovascular therapeutic development may permit more rapid recognition of unmet needs, ensure alignment of product development priorities with patient priorities, improve efficiency of trials (e.g. recruitment), and ensure outcomes of value to patients are being measured in trials (e.g. quality of life). This paper reviews ongoing initiatives and remaining opportunities to accomplish contributive patient involvement in cardiovascular clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to inform healthcare decision-making. Research has shown that response shift can impact PROM results. As part of an international collaboration, our goal is to provide a framework regarding the implications of response shift at the level of patient care (micro), healthcare institute (meso), and healthcare policy (macro). Methods: Empirical evidence of response shift that can influence patients' self-reported health and preferences provided the foundation for development of the framework. Measurement validity theory, hermeneutic philosophy, and micro-, meso-, and macro-level healthcare decision-making informed our theoretical analysis. Results: At the micro-level, patients' self-reported health needs to be interpreted via dialogue with the clinician to avoid misinterpretation of PROM data due to response shift. It is also important to consider the potential impact of response shift on study results, when these are used to support decisions. At the meso-level, individual-level data should be examined for response shift before aggregating PROM data for decision-making related to quality improvement, performance monitoring, and accreditation. At the macro-level, critical reflection on the conceptualization of health is required to know whether response shift needs to be controlled for when PROM data are used to inform healthcare coverage. Conclusion: Given empirical evidence of response shift, there is a critical need for guidelines and knowledge translation to avoid potential misinterpretations of PROM results and consequential biases in decision-making. Our framework with guiding questions provides a structure for developing strategies to address potential impacts of response shift at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]