scholarly journals QOLP-03. MEASURING CHANGE IN HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE: THE ADDED VALUE OF ANALYSIS ON THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT LEVEL IN GLIOMA PATIENTS IN CLINICAL DECISION MAKING

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi197-vi198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Coomans ◽  
Martin Taphoorn ◽  
Neil Aaronson ◽  
Brigitta Baumert ◽  
Martin van den Bent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Scale Item ◽  
Individual Patient Level ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Abstract BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome in glioma research, reflecting the impact of disease and treatment on a patient’s functioning and wellbeing. Data on changes in HRQoL scores provide important information for clinical decision-making, but different analytical methods may lead to different interpretations of the impact of treatment on HRQoL. This study aimed to study whether different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL result in different interpretations. Methods: HRQoL and sociodemographical/clinical data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined. Change in HRQoL scores was analyzed: (1)at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms over time, (2)at the patient level per scale/item by calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved or remained stable on a scale/item per scale/item, and (3)at the individual patient level combining all scales/items. Results: Data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level (method 1), only the item ‘hair loss’ showed a significant and clinically relevant change (i.e. ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items showed a statistically significant change only (all p< .001, range in change score:0.1–6.2). Analyses on the patient level per scale (method 2) indicated that, while a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range:27–84%), many patients deteriorated (range:6–43%) or improved (range:8–32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level (method 3), the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, while only 1% of the patients remained stable on all scales. Conclusion: Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct interpretations of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for clinical decision-making. Additional information about the joint impact of treatment on all outcomes may help patients and physicians to make the best treatment decision.

scholarly journals OS7.2 Measuring change in health-related quality of life: the added value of analysis on the individual patient level in glioma patients in clinical decision making

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii14-iii14
Author(s):  
M Coomans ◽  
M J B Taphoorn ◽  
N Aaronson ◽  
B G Baumert ◽  
M van den Bent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Scale Item ◽  
Individual Patient Level ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Abstract BACKGROUND Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is often used as an outcome in glioma research, reflecting the impact of disease and treatment on a patient’s functioning and wellbeing. Data on changes in HRQoL scores may provide important information for clinical decision-making, but different analytical methods may lead to different interpretations of the impact of treatment on HRQoL. This study aimed to examine three different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL, and to study whether these methods result in different interpretations. MATERIAL AND METHODS HRQoL and sociodemographical/clinical data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined. Change in HRQoL scores was analyzed in three ways: (1) at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms over time, (2) at the patient level per scale/item by calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved or remained stable on a scale/item per scale/item, and (3) at the individual patient level combining all scales/items. RESULTS Baseline and first follow-up HRQoL data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level (method 1), only the item ‘hair loss’ showed a significant and clinically relevant change (i.e. ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items showed a statistically significant change only (all p<.001, range in change score: 0.1–6.2). Analyses on the patient level per scale (method 2) indicated that, while a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range 27–84%), many patients deteriorated (range: 6–43%) or improved (range: 8–32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level (method 3), the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, while only 1% of the patients remained stable on all scales. Clustering on clinical characteristics (WHO performance status, sex, tumor type, type of resection, newly diagnosed versus recurrent tumor and age) did not identify subgroups of patients with a specific pattern of change in their HRQoL score. CONCLUSION Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct interpretations of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for clinical decision-making. Additional information about the joint impact of treatment on all outcomes, showing that most patients experience both deterioration and improvement, may help patients and physicians to make the best treatment decision.

scholarly journals Measuring change in health-related quality of life: the impact of different analytical methods on the interpretation of treatment effects in glioma patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 668-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke B Coomans ◽  
Martin J B Taphoorn ◽  
Neil K Aaronson ◽  
Brigitta G Baumert ◽  
Martin van den Bent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Analytical Methods ◽  
Scale Item ◽  
Individual Patient Level ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Different analytical methods may lead to different conclusions about the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine 3 different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL and to study whether these methods result in different conclusions. Methods HRQoL data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined (CODAGLIO project). Change in HRQoL scores, measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and BN20 questionnaires, was analyzed in 3 ways: (1) at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms, (2) at the patient level per scale/item, calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved, or remained stable per scale/item, and (3) at the individual patient level, combining all scales/items. Results Baseline and first follow-up HRQoL data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level, only the item “hair loss” showed a significant and clinically relevant change (ie, ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items were statistically significant only (all P &lt; .001; range in change score, 0.1-6.2). Although a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range, 27%-84%) on the patient level per scale/item, many patients deteriorated (range, 6%-43%) or improved (range, 8%-32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level, the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, whereas only 1% remained stable on all scales. Conclusions Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct conclusions of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for informing clinical decision making.

scholarly journals The impact of mobile technologies on new graduate nurses’ perceived self-efficacy and clinical decision making: A report from a longitudinal study in Western Canada

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Monique Sedgwick ◽  
Olu Awosoga ◽  
Lance Grigg
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Mobile Technologies ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Pertinent Data ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Healthcare environments require practitioners to competently and independently collect pertinent data, select appropriate key resources, prioritize information, solve problems, and make sound clinical decisions. The steady increase of health-related information implies a need for useful, practical Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools that easily provide nurses’ access to accurate evidence-based information. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of using mobile technologies at the point of care on new graduates’ perceived clinical decision making ability and associated level of self-efficacy over time. A longitudinal quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design was used. A trend in the findings of this small study suggests that over time, using mobile technologies at the point of care did not enhance the participants’ perceived clinical decision making ability or self-efficacy in clinical decision making. Notwithstanding, the use of mobile technologies in the practice setting is wide spread. It, however, may be that the transition from student to graduate nurse is a significant enough event that seriously limits the useful influence of mobile devices and their associated applications on clinical decision making ability and self-efficacy.

AAC Assessment and Clinical-Decision Making: The Impact of Experience

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aimee Dietz ◽  
Wendy Quach ◽  
Shelley K. Lund ◽  
Miechelle McKelvey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The Impact

Standardized Synoptic Cancer Pathology Reports — So What and Who Cares?: A Population-Based Satisfaction Survey of 970 Pathologists, Surgeons, and Oncologists

2013 ◽  
Vol 137 (11) ◽  
pp. 1599-1602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Lankshear ◽  
John Srigley ◽  
Thomas McGowan ◽  
Marta Yurcan ◽  
Carol Sawka
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Physician Satisfaction ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cancer Pathology ◽  
Report Turnaround Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pathology Reporting ◽  
The Impact

Context.—Cancer Care Ontario implemented synoptic pathology reporting across Ontario, impacting the practice of pathologists, surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists. The benefits of standardized synoptic pathology reporting include enhanced completeness and improved consistency in comparison with narrative reports, with reported challenges including increased workload and report turnaround time. Objective.—To determine the impact of synoptic pathology reporting on physician satisfaction specific to practice and process. Design.—A descriptive, cross-sectional design was utilized involving 970 clinicians across 27 hospitals. An 11-item survey was developed to obtain information regarding timeliness, completeness, clarity, and usability. Open-ended questions were also employed to obtain qualitative comments. Results.—A 51% response rate was obtained, with descriptive statistics reporting that physicians perceive synoptic reports as significantly better than narrative reports. Correlation analysis revealed a moderately strong, positive relationship between respondents' perceptions of overall satisfaction with the level of information provided and perceptions of completeness for clinical decision making (r = 0.750, P &lt; .001) and ease of finding information for clinical decision making (r = 0.663, P &lt; .001). Dependent t tests showed a statistically significant difference in the satisfaction scores of pathologists and oncologists (t169 = 3.044, P = .003). Qualitative comments revealed technology-related issues as the most frequently cited factor impacting timeliness of report completion. Conclusion.—This study provides evidence of strong physician satisfaction with synoptic cancer pathology reporting as a clinical decision support tool in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of cancer patients.

scholarly journals Clinicians’ experiences of using and implementing a medical mobile phone app (QUiPP V2) designed to predict the risk of preterm birth and aid clinical decision making

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Carlisle ◽  
H. A. Watson ◽  
J. Carter ◽  
K. Kuhrt ◽  
P. T. Seed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Preterm Birth ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background As the vast majority of women who present in threatened preterm labour (TPTL) will not deliver early, clinicians need to balance the risks of over-medicalising the majority of women, against the potential risk of preterm delivery for those discharged home. The QUiPP app is a free, validated app which can support clinical decision-making as it produces individualised risks of delivery within relevant timeframes. Recent evidence has highlighted that clinicians would welcome a decision-support tool that accurately predicts preterm birth. Methods Qualitative interviews were undertaken as part of the EQUIPTT study (The Evaluation of the QUiPP app for Triage and Transfer) (REC: 17/LO/1802) which aimed to evaluate the impact of the QUiPP app on management of TPTL. Individual semi-structured telephone interviews were used to explore clinicians’ (obstetricians’ and midwives’) experiences of using the QUiPP app and how it was implemented at their hospital sites. Thematic analysis was chosen to explore the meaning of the data, through a framework approach. Results Nineteen participants from 10 hospital sites in England took part. Data analysis revealed three overarching themes which were: ‘experience of using the app’, ‘how QUiPP risk changes practice’ and ‘successfully adopting QUiPP: context is everything’. With these final themes we appeared to have achieved our aim of exploring the clinicians’ experiences of using and implementing the QUiPP app. Conclusion This study explored different clinician’s experiences of implementing the app. The organizational and cultural context at different sites appeared to have a large impact on how well the QUiPP app was implemented. Future work needs to be undertaken to understand how best to embed the intervention within different settings. This will inform scale up of QUiPP app use across the UK and ensure that clinicians have access to this free, easy-to-use tool which can positively aid clinical decision making when caring for women in TPTL. Clinical trial registry and registration number ISRCTN 17846337, registered 08th January 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17846337.

scholarly journals Exploring the role of the Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) in clinical decision-making: a realist evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Scott ◽  
Elisavet Andrikopoulou ◽  
Haythem Nakkas ◽  
Paul Roderick
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Health Information Exchange ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

Background: The overall evidence for the impact of electronic information systems on cost, quality and safety of healthcare remains contested. Whilst it seems intuitively obvious that having more data about a patient will improve care, the mechanisms by which information availability is translated into better decision-making are not well understood. Furthermore, there is the risk of data overload creating a negative outcome. There are situations where a key information summary can be more useful than a rich record. The Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) is a shared electronic health record for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight that combines key information from hospital, general practice, community care and social services. Its purpose is to provide clinical and care professionals with complete, accurate and up-to-date information when caring for patients. CHIE is used by GP out-of-hours services, acute hospital doctors, ambulance service, GPs and others in caring for patients. Research questions: The fundamental question was How does awareness of CHIE or usage of CHIE affect clinical decision-making? The secondary questions were What are the latent benefits of CHIE in frontline NHS operations? and What is the potential of CHIE to have an impact on major NHS cost pressures? The NHS funders decided to focus on acute medical inpatient admissions as the initial scope, given the high costs associated with hospital stays and the patient complexities (and therefore information requirements) often associated with unscheduled admissions. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals to explore their experience about the utility of CHIE in their clinical scenario, whether and how it has affected their decision-making practices and the barriers and facilitators for their use of CHIE. The Framework Method was used for qualitative analysis, supported by the software tool Atlas.ti. Results: 21 healthcare professionals were interviewed. Three main functions were identified as useful: extensive medication prescribing history, information sharing between primary, secondary and social care and access to laboratory test results. We inferred two positive cognitive mechanisms: knowledge confidence and collaboration assurance, and three negative ones: consent anxiety, search anxiety and data mistrust. Conclusions: CHIE gives clinicians the bigger picture to understand the patient's health and social care history and circumstances so as to make confident and informed decisions. CHIE is very beneficial for medicines reconciliation on admission, especially for patients that are unable to speak or act for themselves or who cannot remember their precise medication or allergies. We found no clear evidence that CHIE has a significant impact on admission or discharge decisions. We propose the use of recommender systems to help clinicians navigate such large volumes of patient data, which will only grow as additional data is collected.

Beyond the Development of Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQOL) Measures: A Checklist for Evaluating HRQOL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials—Does HRQOL Evaluation in Prostate Cancer Research Inform Clinical Decision Making?

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (18) ◽  
pp. 3502-3511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Efficace ◽  
Andrew Bottomley ◽  
David Osoba ◽  
Carolyn Gotay ◽  
Henning Flechtner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the inclusion of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as a part of the trial design in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) setting, has supported clinical decision making for the planning of future medical treatments in prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A minimum standard checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials was devised to assess the quality of the HRQOL reporting and to classify the studies on the grounds of their robustness. It comprises 11 key HRQOL issues grouped into four broader sections: conceptual, measurement, methodology, and interpretation. Relevant studies were identified in a number of databases, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Both their HRQOL and traditional clinical reported outcomes were systematically analyzed to evaluate their consistency and their relevance for supporting clinical decision making. Results: Although 54% of the identified studies did not show any differences in traditional clinical end points between treatment arms and 17% showed a difference in overall survival, 74% of the studies showed some difference in terms of HRQOL outcomes. One third of the RCTs provided a comprehensive picture of the whole treatment including HRQOL outcomes to support their conclusions. Conclusion: A minimum set of criteria for assessing the reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials is necessary to make informed decisions in clinical practice. Using a checklist developed for this study, it was found that HRQOL is a valuable source of information in RCTs of treatment in metastatic prostate cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document