Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice

Katherine Smith, Michael D. Brundage, Elliott Tolbert, Emily A. Little, Elissa T. Bantug, Claire Snyder, Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board Pro Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care, but previous research has documented interpretation challenges among clinicians and patients. We engaged stakeholders to improve formats for presenting individual-level PRO data (for patient monitoring) and group-level PRO data (for reporting comparative clinical studies). Methods: In an iterative process, investigators partnered with stakeholder workgroups of clinicians and patients to address previously identified interpretation challenges. Candidate approaches were then tested in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with cancer patients and clinicians. Interpretation issues addressed included conveying score meaning (i.e., what is good/bad) and directional inconsistency (whether higher scores are better/worse). An additional issue for individual-level PROs was highlighting potentially concerning scores and, for group-level PROs, identifying important between-group differences (clinical, statistical). Results: One-on-one interviews in a purposive sample of clinicians (n = 40) and patients (n = 39) provided insights regarding approaches to address issues identified. For example, adding descriptive labels to the Y-axis (none, mild, moderate, severe) helps address directional inconsistency and aids interpretation of score meaning. Red circles around concerning data points or a threshold line indicating worse-than-normal scores indicate possibly concerning scores for individual-level PRO data. For group-level PRO data, patients and some clinicians are confused by confidence limits and clinical versus statistical significance, but almost all clinicians want p values displayed. Conclusions: Variations in interpretation accuracy demonstrate the importance of presenting PRO data in ways that promote understanding and use. In an iterative stakeholder-driven process, we developed improved PRO data presentation formats, which will be evaluated in further research across a large population of patients and clinicians.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-9
Number of pages9
JournalSupportive Care in Cancer
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - May 10 2016

Fingerprint

Interviews
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patient-Centered Care
Physiologic Monitoring
Research
Research Design
Research Personnel
Population
Neoplasms
Clinical Studies

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • Communication
  • Mixed methods
  • Oncology
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Stakeholder engagement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology

Cite this

Smith, K., Brundage, M. D., Tolbert, E., Little, E. A., Bantug, E. T., Snyder, C., & Pro Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board, D. P. S. A. B. (Accepted/In press). Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice. Supportive Care in Cancer, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3240-0

Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice. / Smith, Katherine; Brundage, Michael D.; Tolbert, Elliott; Little, Emily A.; Bantug, Elissa T.; Snyder, Claire; Pro Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board, Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board.

In: Supportive Care in Cancer, 10.05.2016, p. 1-9.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Smith, Katherine ; Brundage, Michael D. ; Tolbert, Elliott ; Little, Emily A. ; Bantug, Elissa T. ; Snyder, Claire ; Pro Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board, Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. / Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice. In: Supportive Care in Cancer. 2016 ; pp. 1-9.
@article{0a91bfe721bf467788942fb5b58b6d86,
title = "Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice",
abstract = "Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care, but previous research has documented interpretation challenges among clinicians and patients. We engaged stakeholders to improve formats for presenting individual-level PRO data (for patient monitoring) and group-level PRO data (for reporting comparative clinical studies). Methods: In an iterative process, investigators partnered with stakeholder workgroups of clinicians and patients to address previously identified interpretation challenges. Candidate approaches were then tested in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with cancer patients and clinicians. Interpretation issues addressed included conveying score meaning (i.e., what is good/bad) and directional inconsistency (whether higher scores are better/worse). An additional issue for individual-level PROs was highlighting potentially concerning scores and, for group-level PROs, identifying important between-group differences (clinical, statistical). Results: One-on-one interviews in a purposive sample of clinicians (n = 40) and patients (n = 39) provided insights regarding approaches to address issues identified. For example, adding descriptive labels to the Y-axis (none, mild, moderate, severe) helps address directional inconsistency and aids interpretation of score meaning. Red circles around concerning data points or a threshold line indicating worse-than-normal scores indicate possibly concerning scores for individual-level PRO data. For group-level PRO data, patients and some clinicians are confused by confidence limits and clinical versus statistical significance, but almost all clinicians want p values displayed. Conclusions: Variations in interpretation accuracy demonstrate the importance of presenting PRO data in ways that promote understanding and use. In an iterative stakeholder-driven process, we developed improved PRO data presentation formats, which will be evaluated in further research across a large population of patients and clinicians.",
keywords = "Cancer, Communication, Mixed methods, Oncology, Patient-reported outcomes, Stakeholder engagement",
author = "Katherine Smith and Brundage, {Michael D.} and Elliott Tolbert and Little, {Emily A.} and Bantug, {Elissa T.} and Claire Snyder and {Pro Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board}, {Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board}",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1007/s00520-016-3240-0",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--9",
journal = "Supportive Care in Cancer",
issn = "0941-4355",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice

AU - Smith, Katherine

AU - Brundage, Michael D.

AU - Tolbert, Elliott

AU - Little, Emily A.

AU - Bantug, Elissa T.

AU - Snyder, Claire

AU - Pro Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board, Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board

PY - 2016/5/10

Y1 - 2016/5/10

N2 - Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care, but previous research has documented interpretation challenges among clinicians and patients. We engaged stakeholders to improve formats for presenting individual-level PRO data (for patient monitoring) and group-level PRO data (for reporting comparative clinical studies). Methods: In an iterative process, investigators partnered with stakeholder workgroups of clinicians and patients to address previously identified interpretation challenges. Candidate approaches were then tested in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with cancer patients and clinicians. Interpretation issues addressed included conveying score meaning (i.e., what is good/bad) and directional inconsistency (whether higher scores are better/worse). An additional issue for individual-level PROs was highlighting potentially concerning scores and, for group-level PROs, identifying important between-group differences (clinical, statistical). Results: One-on-one interviews in a purposive sample of clinicians (n = 40) and patients (n = 39) provided insights regarding approaches to address issues identified. For example, adding descriptive labels to the Y-axis (none, mild, moderate, severe) helps address directional inconsistency and aids interpretation of score meaning. Red circles around concerning data points or a threshold line indicating worse-than-normal scores indicate possibly concerning scores for individual-level PRO data. For group-level PRO data, patients and some clinicians are confused by confidence limits and clinical versus statistical significance, but almost all clinicians want p values displayed. Conclusions: Variations in interpretation accuracy demonstrate the importance of presenting PRO data in ways that promote understanding and use. In an iterative stakeholder-driven process, we developed improved PRO data presentation formats, which will be evaluated in further research across a large population of patients and clinicians.

AB - Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care, but previous research has documented interpretation challenges among clinicians and patients. We engaged stakeholders to improve formats for presenting individual-level PRO data (for patient monitoring) and group-level PRO data (for reporting comparative clinical studies). Methods: In an iterative process, investigators partnered with stakeholder workgroups of clinicians and patients to address previously identified interpretation challenges. Candidate approaches were then tested in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with cancer patients and clinicians. Interpretation issues addressed included conveying score meaning (i.e., what is good/bad) and directional inconsistency (whether higher scores are better/worse). An additional issue for individual-level PROs was highlighting potentially concerning scores and, for group-level PROs, identifying important between-group differences (clinical, statistical). Results: One-on-one interviews in a purposive sample of clinicians (n = 40) and patients (n = 39) provided insights regarding approaches to address issues identified. For example, adding descriptive labels to the Y-axis (none, mild, moderate, severe) helps address directional inconsistency and aids interpretation of score meaning. Red circles around concerning data points or a threshold line indicating worse-than-normal scores indicate possibly concerning scores for individual-level PRO data. For group-level PRO data, patients and some clinicians are confused by confidence limits and clinical versus statistical significance, but almost all clinicians want p values displayed. Conclusions: Variations in interpretation accuracy demonstrate the importance of presenting PRO data in ways that promote understanding and use. In an iterative stakeholder-driven process, we developed improved PRO data presentation formats, which will be evaluated in further research across a large population of patients and clinicians.

KW - Cancer

KW - Communication

KW - Mixed methods

KW - Oncology

KW - Patient-reported outcomes

KW - Stakeholder engagement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84966550917&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84966550917&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00520-016-3240-0

DO - 10.1007/s00520-016-3240-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 27165054

AN - SCOPUS:84966550917

SP - 1

EP - 9

JO - Supportive Care in Cancer

JF - Supportive Care in Cancer

SN - 0941-4355

ER -