Cargando…

What do these scores mean? Presenting patient‐reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability

BACKGROUND: Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) (eg, symptoms, functioning) can inform patient management. However, patients and clinicians often have difficulty interpreting score meaning. The authors tested approaches for presenting PRO data to improve interpretability. METHODS: This mixed‐methods st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Snyder, Claire F., Smith, Katherine C., Bantug, Elissa T., Tolbert, Elliott E., Blackford, Amanda L., Brundage, Michael D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5419857/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28085201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30530
_version_ 1783234291296108544
author Snyder, Claire F.
Smith, Katherine C.
Bantug, Elissa T.
Tolbert, Elliott E.
Blackford, Amanda L.
Brundage, Michael D.
author_facet Snyder, Claire F.
Smith, Katherine C.
Bantug, Elissa T.
Tolbert, Elliott E.
Blackford, Amanda L.
Brundage, Michael D.
author_sort Snyder, Claire F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) (eg, symptoms, functioning) can inform patient management. However, patients and clinicians often have difficulty interpreting score meaning. The authors tested approaches for presenting PRO data to improve interpretability. METHODS: This mixed‐methods study included an Internet survey of cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers circulated via snowball sampling, plus individual in‐person interviews. Clinical importance was conveyed using 3 approaches (presented in random order): normal score range shaded green, concerning scores circled in red, and red threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Versions also tested 2 approaches to score directionality: higher = more (better for function, worse for symptoms) and higher = better for both function and symptoms. Qualitative data from online comments and in‐person interviews supplemented quantitative results on interpretation accuracy, clarity, and the “most useful” format. RESULTS: The survey included 1113 respondents: 627 survivors, 236 clinicians, and 250 researchers, plus 10 patients and 10 clinicians who were purposively sampled interviewees. Interpretation accuracy ranged from 53% to 100%. The formats in which higher = better were interpreted more accurately versus those in which higher = more (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07‐1.58) and were more likely to be rated “very”/“somewhat” clear (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13‐1.70) and “very” clear (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18‐1.58). Red circle formats were interpreted more accurately than green‐shaded formats when the first format presented (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00‐1.65). Threshold‐line formats were more likely to be rated “very” clear than green‐shaded (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19‐1.71) and red‐circled (OR, 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02‐1.46) formats. Threshold lines were most often selected as “most useful.” CONCLUSIONS: The current results support presenting PRO data with higher = better directionality and threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Cancer 2017;123:1848–1859. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published byWiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations aremade.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5419857
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54198572017-06-01 What do these scores mean? Presenting patient‐reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability Snyder, Claire F. Smith, Katherine C. Bantug, Elissa T. Tolbert, Elliott E. Blackford, Amanda L. Brundage, Michael D. Cancer Original Articles BACKGROUND: Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) (eg, symptoms, functioning) can inform patient management. However, patients and clinicians often have difficulty interpreting score meaning. The authors tested approaches for presenting PRO data to improve interpretability. METHODS: This mixed‐methods study included an Internet survey of cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers circulated via snowball sampling, plus individual in‐person interviews. Clinical importance was conveyed using 3 approaches (presented in random order): normal score range shaded green, concerning scores circled in red, and red threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Versions also tested 2 approaches to score directionality: higher = more (better for function, worse for symptoms) and higher = better for both function and symptoms. Qualitative data from online comments and in‐person interviews supplemented quantitative results on interpretation accuracy, clarity, and the “most useful” format. RESULTS: The survey included 1113 respondents: 627 survivors, 236 clinicians, and 250 researchers, plus 10 patients and 10 clinicians who were purposively sampled interviewees. Interpretation accuracy ranged from 53% to 100%. The formats in which higher = better were interpreted more accurately versus those in which higher = more (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07‐1.58) and were more likely to be rated “very”/“somewhat” clear (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13‐1.70) and “very” clear (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18‐1.58). Red circle formats were interpreted more accurately than green‐shaded formats when the first format presented (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00‐1.65). Threshold‐line formats were more likely to be rated “very” clear than green‐shaded (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19‐1.71) and red‐circled (OR, 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02‐1.46) formats. Threshold lines were most often selected as “most useful.” CONCLUSIONS: The current results support presenting PRO data with higher = better directionality and threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Cancer 2017;123:1848–1859. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published byWiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations aremade. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-01-13 2017-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5419857/ /pubmed/28085201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30530 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Snyder, Claire F.
Smith, Katherine C.
Bantug, Elissa T.
Tolbert, Elliott E.
Blackford, Amanda L.
Brundage, Michael D.
What do these scores mean? Presenting patient‐reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability
title What do these scores mean? Presenting patient‐reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability
title_full What do these scores mean? Presenting patient‐reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability
title_fullStr What do these scores mean? Presenting patient‐reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability
title_full_unstemmed What do these scores mean? Presenting patient‐reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability
title_short What do these scores mean? Presenting patient‐reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability
title_sort what do these scores mean? presenting patient‐reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5419857/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28085201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30530
work_keys_str_mv AT snyderclairef whatdothesescoresmeanpresentingpatientreportedoutcomesdatatopatientsandclinicianstoimproveinterpretability
AT smithkatherinec whatdothesescoresmeanpresentingpatientreportedoutcomesdatatopatientsandclinicianstoimproveinterpretability
AT bantugelissat whatdothesescoresmeanpresentingpatientreportedoutcomesdatatopatientsandclinicianstoimproveinterpretability
AT tolbertelliotte whatdothesescoresmeanpresentingpatientreportedoutcomesdatatopatientsandclinicianstoimproveinterpretability
AT blackfordamandal whatdothesescoresmeanpresentingpatientreportedoutcomesdatatopatientsandclinicianstoimproveinterpretability
AT brundagemichaeld whatdothesescoresmeanpresentingpatientreportedoutcomesdatatopatientsandclinicianstoimproveinterpretability
AT whatdothesescoresmeanpresentingpatientreportedoutcomesdatatopatientsandclinicianstoimproveinterpretability