We have located links that may give you full text access.
Importance ratings on patient-reported outcome items for survivorship care: comparison between pediatric cancer survivors, parents, and clinicians.
Quality of Life Research 2018 July
PURPOSE: To compare importance ratings of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) items from the viewpoints of childhood cancer survivors, parents, and clinicians for further developing short-forms to use in survivorship care.
METHODS: 101 cancer survivors, 101 their parents, and 36 clinicians were recruited from St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. Participants were asked to select eight items that they deemed useful for clinical decision making from each of the four Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric item banks. These item banks were pain interference (20 items), fatigue (23 items), psychological stress (19 items), and positive affect (37 items).
RESULTS: Compared to survivors, clinicians rated more items across four domains that were statistically different than did parents (23 vs. 13 items). Clinicians rated five items in pain interference domain (ORs 2.33-6.01; p's < 0.05) and three items in fatigue domain (ORs 2.22-3.80; p's < .05) as more important but rated three items in psychological stress domain (ORs 0.14-0.42; p's < .05) and six items in positive affect domain (ORs 0.17-0.35; p's < .05) as less important than did survivors. In contrast, parents rated seven items in positive affect domain (ORs 0.25-0.47; p's < .05) as less important than did survivors.
CONCLUSIONS: Survivors, parents, and clinicians viewed importance of PRO items for survivorship care differently. These perspectives should be used to assist the development of PROs tools.
METHODS: 101 cancer survivors, 101 their parents, and 36 clinicians were recruited from St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. Participants were asked to select eight items that they deemed useful for clinical decision making from each of the four Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric item banks. These item banks were pain interference (20 items), fatigue (23 items), psychological stress (19 items), and positive affect (37 items).
RESULTS: Compared to survivors, clinicians rated more items across four domains that were statistically different than did parents (23 vs. 13 items). Clinicians rated five items in pain interference domain (ORs 2.33-6.01; p's < 0.05) and three items in fatigue domain (ORs 2.22-3.80; p's < .05) as more important but rated three items in psychological stress domain (ORs 0.14-0.42; p's < .05) and six items in positive affect domain (ORs 0.17-0.35; p's < .05) as less important than did survivors. In contrast, parents rated seven items in positive affect domain (ORs 0.25-0.47; p's < .05) as less important than did survivors.
CONCLUSIONS: Survivors, parents, and clinicians viewed importance of PRO items for survivorship care differently. These perspectives should be used to assist the development of PROs tools.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app