Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptom scales or more broad-based health-related quality-of-life measures, play an important role in oncology clinical trials. They frequently are used to help evaluate cancer treatments, as well as for supportive and palliative oncology care. To be most beneficial, these PROs must be relevant to patients and clinicians, valid, and easily understood and interpreted. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Network, part of the National Institutes of Health Roadmap Initiative, aims to improve appreciably how PROs are selected and assessed in clinical research, including clinical trials. PROMIS is establishing a publicly available resource of standardized, accurate, and efficient PRO measures of major self-reported health domains (eg, pain, fatigue, emotional distress, physical function, social function) that are relevant across chronic illnesses including cancer. PROMIS is also developing measures of self-reported health domains specifically targeted to cancer, such as sleep/wake function, sexual function, cognitive function, and the psychosocial impacts of the illness experience (ie, stress response and coping; shifts in self-concept, social interactions, and spirituality). We outline the qualitative and quantitative methods by which PROMIS measures are being developed and adapted for use in clinical oncology research. At the core of this activity is the formation and application of item banks using item response theory modeling. We also present our work in the fatigue domain, including a short-form measure, as a sample of PROMIS methodology and work to date. Plans for future validation and application of PROMIS measures are discussed.
Communication during conversations about death is critical; however, little is known about the language clinicians and families use to discuss death.To characterize (1) the way death is discussed in family meetings between parents of critically ill infants and the clinical team and (2) how discussion of death differs between clinicians and family members.This longitudinal qualitative study took place at a single academic hospital in the southeast US. Patients were enrolled from September 2018 to September 2020, and infants were followed up longitudinally throughout their hospitalization. Participants included families of infants with neurologic conditions who were hospitalized in the intensive care unit and had a planned family meeting to discuss neurologic prognosis or starting, not starting, or discontinuing life-sustaining treatment. Family meetings were recorded, transcribed, and deidentified before being screened for discussion of death.The main outcome was the language used to reference death during family meetings between parents and clinicians. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze data.A total of 68 family meetings involving 36 parents of 24 infants were screened; 33 family meetings (49%) involving 20 parents (56%) and 13 infants (54%) included discussion of death. Most parents involved in discussion of death identified as the infant's mother (13 [65%]) and as Black (12 [60%]). Death was referenced 406 times throughout the family meetings (275 times by clinicians and 131 times by family members); the words die, death, dying, or stillborn were used 5% of the time by clinicians (13 of 275 references) and 15% of the time by family members (19 of 131 references). Four types of euphemisms used in place of die, death, dying, or stillborn were identified: (1) survival framing (eg, not live), (2) colloquialisms (eg, pass away), (3) medical jargon, including obscure technical terms (eg, code event) or talking around death with physiologic terms (eg, irrecoverable heart rate drop), and (4) pronouns without an antecedent (eg, it). The most common type of euphemism used by clinicians was medical jargon (118 of 275 references [43%]). The most common type of euphemism used by family members was colloquialism (44 of 131 references [34%]).In this qualitative study, the words die, death, dying, or stillborn were rarely used to refer to death in family meetings with clinicians. Families most often used colloquialisms to reference death, and clinicians most often used medical jargon. Future work should evaluate the effects of euphemisms on mutual understanding, shared decision-making, and clinician-family relationships.
Background— Although the informed consent process is supposed to help potential research participants make informed and voluntary decisions about participating in research, little is known about how participants react to language in the informed consent document and whether their reactions are related to their willingness to enroll in clinical trials. We examined the relationship between patients’ reactions to standard informed consent language and their willingness to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial. Methods and Results— We simulated the consent process for a hypothetical cardiology clinical trial with 470 patients in an outpatient cardiovascular medicine clinic at a large academic medical center. We analyzed the spontaneous comments and questions that participants made during the interviews about each section of the informed consent document. Few participants made positive comments. Participants made the most negative comments about the sections on risks, study purpose or protocol, and payment for injury. Having a negative reaction to any section was associated with a lower likelihood of participating in the clinical trial. Using a multivariable model, we found that negative reactions in the patient rights, financial disclosure, and confidentiality sections predicted willingness to participate ( P <0.001). Conclusions— Recognizing elements of informed consent that elicit questions and concerns from potential research participants may help investigators design clinical research trials and model language in a way that reduces concerns or increases participant understanding, thereby enhancing informed consent for research.
Objective. To assess principal investigators' and study coordinators' views and experiences regarding community consultation in a multicenter trial of prehospital treatment for status epilepticus conducted under an exception from informed consent for research in emergency settings. Methods. Principal investigators and study coordinators at all 17 hubs for the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) were invited to complete a web-based survey regarding community consultation at their site for RAMPART. Major domains included 1) perceived goals of community consultation, 2) experiences with and views of community consultation methods used, 3) interactions with IRB regarding community consultation, and 4) general satisfaction and lessons learned. Descriptive statistics were tabulated for Likert scale data; relevant themes were reported for text-based data. Results. Twenty-eight individuals (16 coordinators and 12 investigators) representing all 17 RAMPART hubs completed the survey. Respondents considered multiple community consultation goals to be important, with least support for the role of community consultation in altering study design. All sites used multiple methods (median = 5). The most widely used, and generally favored, method was attending previously scheduled meetings of existing groups. Respondents expressed frustration with low attendance and responsiveness at open public meetings. Conclusions. Coordinators and investigators in this trial viewed community consultation efforts as successful but reported real challenges generating public interest. Individuals with the condition under study were found to be more engaged and supportive of the trial. Respondents endorsed numerous potential goals of the community consultation process and often combined methods to achieve these goals.
Patients with life-threatening conditions sometimes appear to make risky treatment decisions as their condition declines, contradicting the risk-averse behavior predicted by expected utility theory. Prospect theory accommodates such decisions by describing how individuals evaluate outcomes relative to a reference point and how they exhibit risk-seeking behavior over losses relative to that point. The authors show that a patient's reference point for his or her health is a key factor in determining which treatment option the patient selects, and they examine under what circumstances the more risky option is selected. The authors argue that patients' reference points may take time to adjust following a change in diagnosis, with implications for predicting under what circumstances a patient may select experimental or conventional therapies or select no treatment.
The authors sought to explore the use and perceptions of clinical practice guidelines among internal medicine physicians. Through a Web-based survey, 201 board-certified internal medicine physicians rated their opinions on several statements using 7-point Likert scales. Most respondents (74.7%) felt that guidelines were suitable for at least half of their patients, although a failure to take comorbid conditions into account was a frequently cited barrier. For patients with cardiovascular disease, there was no difference between individual internists' perceptions of their own compliance with guidelines and their estimates of cardiologists' compliance (P = .14). A large majority of respondents (70.7%) believed that guideline committee member participation in industry-funded research introduces bias into guideline content (median [interquartile range], 5 [4-6]). Although most respondents felt that measuring physicians against guideline-based performance measures encourages evidence-based medicine (76.5%), opinions were split as to whether this practice distracts from patient care or compromises physician autonomy. (Am J Med Qual 2007;22:170-176)
