Outcomes of prognostication in people living with advanced cancer: a qualitative study to inform a Core Outcome Set

Caitlin Spooner, Bella Vivat, Nicola White, Patrick Stone
{"title":"Outcomes of prognostication in people living with advanced cancer: a qualitative study to inform a Core Outcome Set","authors":"Caitlin Spooner, Bella Vivat, Nicola White, Patrick Stone","doi":"10.1101/2024.02.08.24302518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Studies of prognostication in advanced cancer use a wide range of outcomes and outcome measures, making it difficult to compare these studies and their findings. Core Outcome Sets facilitate comparability and standardisation between studies and would benefit future prognostic research. This qualitative study is the second step in developing such a Core Outcome Set, with the aim to explore the perceptions and experiences of patients with advanced cancer, informal caregivers, and clinicians regarding the potential outcomes of prognostication. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients living with advanced cancer (n=8), informal caregivers (n=10), and clinicians (n=10) recruited from palliative care services across three sites in London, United Kingdom. Interviews were conducted in-person, via telephone, or video conferencing, and were audio-recorded. Data were analysed using a thematic framework analysis approach. Findings were compared with outcomes derived from a previously published systematic review. Results: We identified 33 outcomes, 16 of which were not previously reported in the literature. We grouped outcomes into 10 domains, using a modified COMET taxonomy: 1) mortality/survival; 2) general physiological/clinical outcomes; 3) psychiatric outcomes; 4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing; 5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; 6) social functioning; 7) delivery of care; 8) perceived health status; 9) personal circumstances; 10) societal/carer burden. These findings highlighted discrepancies between the priorities of existing research and those of stakeholders. Conclusions: This study offers valuable insights into outcomes significant to key stakeholders, underscoring the need for a patient-centred approach in research and clinical practice in prognostication in advanced cancer. These outcomes will play a key role in the development of a Core Outcome Set to assess the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer.","PeriodicalId":501412,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Palliative Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.08.24302518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Studies of prognostication in advanced cancer use a wide range of outcomes and outcome measures, making it difficult to compare these studies and their findings. Core Outcome Sets facilitate comparability and standardisation between studies and would benefit future prognostic research. This qualitative study is the second step in developing such a Core Outcome Set, with the aim to explore the perceptions and experiences of patients with advanced cancer, informal caregivers, and clinicians regarding the potential outcomes of prognostication. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients living with advanced cancer (n=8), informal caregivers (n=10), and clinicians (n=10) recruited from palliative care services across three sites in London, United Kingdom. Interviews were conducted in-person, via telephone, or video conferencing, and were audio-recorded. Data were analysed using a thematic framework analysis approach. Findings were compared with outcomes derived from a previously published systematic review. Results: We identified 33 outcomes, 16 of which were not previously reported in the literature. We grouped outcomes into 10 domains, using a modified COMET taxonomy: 1) mortality/survival; 2) general physiological/clinical outcomes; 3) psychiatric outcomes; 4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing; 5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; 6) social functioning; 7) delivery of care; 8) perceived health status; 9) personal circumstances; 10) societal/carer burden. These findings highlighted discrepancies between the priorities of existing research and those of stakeholders. Conclusions: This study offers valuable insights into outcomes significant to key stakeholders, underscoring the need for a patient-centred approach in research and clinical practice in prognostication in advanced cancer. These outcomes will play a key role in the development of a Core Outcome Set to assess the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer.
晚期癌症患者的预后结果:一项为核心结果集提供信息的定性研究
背景:晚期癌症预后研究使用了多种结果和结果测量方法,因此很难对这些研究及其结果进行比较。核心结果集有助于研究之间的可比性和标准化,并有利于未来的预后研究。本定性研究是开发此类核心结果集的第二步,旨在探讨晚期癌症患者、非正式护理人员和临床医生对预后潜在结果的看法和经验。研究方法我们对晚期癌症患者(8 人)、非正式照护者(10 人)和临床医生(10 人)进行了半结构化访谈,访谈对象来自英国伦敦的三个姑息关怀服务机构。访谈以面谈、电话或视频会议的形式进行,并进行了录音。采用主题框架分析法对数据进行分析。研究结果与之前发表的系统综述中得出的结果进行了比较。结果我们确定了 33 项结果,其中 16 项结果以前未在文献中报道过。我们使用修改后的 COMET 分类法将结果分为 10 个领域:1)死亡率/存活率;2)一般生理/临床结果;3)精神病学结果;4)精神/宗教/存在功能/福祉;5)情感功能/福祉;6)社会功能;7)提供护理;8)感知健康状况;9)个人情况;10)社会/护理者负担。这些发现凸显了现有研究重点与利益相关者重点之间的差异。结论:本研究提供了对主要利益相关者具有重要意义的结果的宝贵见解,强调了在晚期癌症预后的研究和临床实践中采用以患者为中心的方法的必要性。这些结果将在开发核心结果集以评估晚期癌症预后影响方面发挥关键作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信