Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Ga naar:
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
BSL Shop
Inloggen

Welkom bij Erasmus MC & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Erasmus MC heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

» Andere revante producten voor Erasmus MC studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van Erasmus MC, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van Erasmus MC.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

10-09-2022 | Special Section: Methodologies for Meaningful Change

Common methods of determining meaningful change in clinical practice: implications for precision patient-reported outcomes

Auteurs: Salene M. W. Jones, Aliana Gaffney, Joseph M. Unger

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2023

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical practice for several purposes, including to monitor whether a treatment is working or whether a patient is experiencing adverse events from treatment. This study surveyed oncology providers (OP) and mental health providers (MHP) to determine how clinicians from different disciplines determine individual-level meaningful change on PROs. Understanding how clinicians determine change on PROs could help inform methods for individualizing meaningful change definitions, an approach we have dubbed “Precision PROs”.

Methods

Three hundred and forty-seven providers utilizing PROs completed an online survey about PRO use to monitor patients in clinical practice. A question on methods used to determine individual-level meaningful change on PROs was developed with input from clinicians. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether specific methods were associated with clinician characteristics.

Results

The most commonly reported method was comparing the previous score to the current score (65%). Other methods included examining the numerical scores without a visual aid (59%), considering other factors affecting scores (42%), comparing scores to norms (31%) and using a graph of scores (29%). Provider age was negatively associated with odds of using a graph (OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.91, 1.0) but no other method. Provider gender, hours per week in clinical practice and years in practice were not associated with odds of using a specific method.

Conclusions

Most providers determined individual-level meaningful change without a visual aid and used only the previous score and current score, the minimum number (2 scores) to determine change. Consistent with current practice, future research on methods of determining within-individual meaningful change for clinical use should focus on methods requiring two rather than three or more scores. When attempting to personalize within-individual change definitions (Precision PROs), methods examining a baseline and single follow-up may be most useful for clinical practice.
vorige artikel Introduction to the special section: “Methodologies and considerations for meaningful change”
volgende artikel The challenges inherent with anchor-based approaches to the interpretation of important change in clinical outcome assessments
Literatuur
1.
2.
3.
Denis F., Lethrosne C., Pourel N., Molinier O., Pointreau Y., Domont J., et al. (2017) Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 109(9). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​jnci/​djx029. Accessed 11 Oct 2018.
4.
Denis F., Yossi S., Septans A. L., Charron A., Voog E., Dupuis O., et al. (2015) Improving survival in patients treated for a lung cancer using self-evaluated symptoms reported through a web application. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 40(5), 464–469. Retrieved 27 March, 2015 from https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​COC.​0000000000000189​. Accessed 27 Mar 2015.CrossRef
5.
6.
Uryniak, T., Chan, I. S. F., Fedorov, V. V., Jiang, Q., Oppenheimer, L., Snapinn, S. M., Teng, C. H., & Zhang, J. (2011). Responder analyses-A PhRMA position paper. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 3(3), 476–487.CrossRef
7.
Pe, M., Dorme, L., Coens, C., Basch, E., Calvert, M., Campbell, A., Cleeland, C., Cocks, K., Collette, L., Dirven, L., Dueck, A. C., Devlin, N., Flechtner, H. H., Gotay, C., Griebsch, I., Groenvold, M., King, M., Koller, M., Malone, D. C., Martinelli, F., Mitchell, S. A., Musoro, J. Z., Oliver, K., Piault-Louis, E., Piccart, M., Pimentel, F. L., Quinten, C., Reijneveld, J. C., Sloan, J., Velikova, G., & Bottomley, A. (2018). Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncology, 19(9), e459–69. Retrieved 8 September, 2018 from https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​30191850
8.
Bottomley, A., Pe, M., Sloan, J., Basch, E., Bonnetain, F., Calvert, M., Campbell, A., Cleeland, C., Cocks, K., Collette, L., Dueck, A. C., Devlin, N., Flechtner, H. H., Gotay, C., Greimel, E., Griebsch, I., Groenvold, M., Hamel, J. F., King, M., Kluetz, P. G., Koller, M., Malone, D. C., Martinelli, F., Mitchell, S. A., Moinpour, C. M., Musoro, J. Z., O'Connor, D., Oliver, K., Piault-Louis, E., Piccart, M., Pimentel, F. L., Quinten, C., Reijneveld, J. C., Schurmann, C., Smith, A. W., Soltys, K. M., Sridhara, R., Taphoorn, M. J. B., Velikova, G., & Coens, C. (2018). Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials. Clinical Trials, 15(6), 624–630. Retrieved 25 August, 2018 from https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​30141714
9.
Coens, C., Pe, M., Dueck, A. C., Sloan, J., Basch, E., Calvert, M., Campbell, A., Cleeland, C., Cocks, K., Collette, L., Devlin, N., Dorme, L., Flechtner, H. H., Gotay, C., Griebsch, I., Groenvold, M., King, M., Kluetz, P. G., Koller, M., Malone, D. C., Martinelli, F., Mitchell, S. A., Musoro, J. Z., O'Connor, D., Oliver, K., Piault-Louis, E., Piccart, M., Quinten, C., Reijneveld, J. C., Schurmann, C., Smith, A. W., Soltys, K. M., Taphoorn, M. J. B., Velikova, G., & Bottomley, A. (2020). International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium. Lancet Oncology, 21(2), e83–96. Retrieved 3 February, 2020 from https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​32007209
10.
Borckardt J. J., Nash M. R., Murphy M. D., Moore M., Shaw D., O’Neil P. (2008) Clinical practice as natural laboratory for psychotherapy research: a guide to case-based time-series analysis. American Psychologist [Internet] 63(2):77–95. Retrieved 21 February, 2008 from https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​18284277
11.
Dobson K.S., Hollon S. D., Dimidjian S., Schmaling K. B., Kohlenberg R. J., Gallop R. J. et al. (2008) Randomized trial of behavioral activation, cognitive therapy, and antidepressant medication in the prevention of relapse and recurrence in major depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology [Internet] 76(3):468–77. Retrieved from: http://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​18540740. Accessed 9 Aug 2018.
12.
13.
14.
Zylla D., Larson A., Chuy G., Illig L., Peck A., Van Peursem S. et al. (2017) Establishment of personalized pain goals in oncology patients to improve care and decrease costs. Journal of Oncology Practice [Internet] 13(3):e266–72. Retrieved 4 January, 2017 from: https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​28045611
15.
Arthur, J., Tanco, K., Park, M., Haider, A., Maligi, C., Dalal, S., Naqvi, S. M. A., Liu, D., & Bruera, E. (2018). Personalized pain goal as an outcome measure in routine cancer pain assessment. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 56(1), 80–87. Retrieved 13 March, 2018 from: https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​29526610
16.
17.
18.
Lavallee, D. C., Chenok, K. E., Love, R. M., Petersen, C., Holve, E., Segal, C. D., & Franklin, P. D. (2016). Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Affairs, 35(4), 575–582.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Antunes, B., Harding, R., & Higginson, I. J. (2014). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: A systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliative Medicine, 28(2), 158–175.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Jones, S. M. W., Du, Y., Bell-Brown, A., Bolt, K., & Unger, J. M. (2020). Feasibility and validity of asking patients to define individual levels of meaningful change on patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews, 7(3), 239.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
22.
Bringmann, L. F., van der Veen, D. C., Wichers, M., Riese, H., & Stulp, G. (2021). ESMvis: a tool for visualizing individual experience sampling method (ESM) data. Quality of Life Research, 30(11), 3179–3188.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
25.
Howell, D., Molloy, S., Wilkinson, K., Green, E., Orchard, K., Wang, K., & Liberty, J. (2015). Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: A scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Annals of Oncology, 26, 1846–1858.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Metagegevens
Titel
Common methods of determining meaningful change in clinical practice: implications for precision patient-reported outcomes
Auteurs
Salene M. W. Jones
Aliana Gaffney
Joseph M. Unger
Publicatiedatum
10-09-2022
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03246-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2023

Using qualitative methods to establish the clinically meaningful threshold for treatment success in alopecia areata

  • Special Section: Methodologies for Meaningful Change

Correction: How strong should my anchor be for estimating group and individual level meaningful change? A simulation study assessing anchor correlation strength and the impact of sample size, distribution of change scores and methodology on establishing a true meaningful change threshold

  • Correction

Lived experience of patients with sleep apnea: a systematic synthesis of qualitative evidence

Predictors of change in asthma-related quality of life: a longitudinal real-life study in adult asthmatics

  • Open Access

Establishing thresholds for meaningful within-individual change using longitudinal item response theory

  • Open Access
  • Special Section: Methodologies for Meaningful Change

Correction: Likely change indexes improve estimates of individual change on patient‑reported outcomes

  • Correction