Patient scoring of outcomes for clinical trials that compare treatment options for bloodstream infections: a survey among adult inpatients.

IF 10.9 1区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Judith Olchowski, Hagar Dallasheh, Maria Postnikov, Yosuf Laham, Hanan Egbaria, Mical Paul
{"title":"Patient scoring of outcomes for clinical trials that compare treatment options for bloodstream infections: a survey among adult inpatients.","authors":"Judith Olchowski, Hagar Dallasheh, Maria Postnikov, Yosuf Laham, Hanan Egbaria, Mical Paul","doi":"10.1016/j.cmi.2024.11.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patients' perspectives on outcomes of clinical trials is critical to the design of meaningful trials. As they are the primary recipients of treatment, it is important to focus on outcomes that are of value to the patients. We planned a study involving patients in defining and prioritizing endpoints for intervention trials for bloodstream infections (BSI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was conducted at Rambam Health Care Campus, targeting hospitalized patients over 18 years old. Participants were asked to score the importance of various outcomes on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being most important. We calculated the mean and median and dispersion measures per outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>732 randomly selected patients were approached; 378 were not available due to technical reasons. Of the remaining 354 approached to take the survey, 300 consented and participated in the study. The median age was 51.9 years, with 55.3% female. Death was scored as the most important outcome, while the length of hospital stay was the least important.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Eliciting patient views on outcome importance was challenging but revealed key insights. Patients prioritized death, functional decline, and the development of secondary infections. Non-clinical outcomes, such as microbiological failure, were less clearly understood. Future studies should focus on clinical outcomes and include larger, more diverse patient populations to enhance the relevance of BSI trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":10444,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Microbiology and Infection","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Microbiology and Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2024.11.014","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Patients' perspectives on outcomes of clinical trials is critical to the design of meaningful trials. As they are the primary recipients of treatment, it is important to focus on outcomes that are of value to the patients. We planned a study involving patients in defining and prioritizing endpoints for intervention trials for bloodstream infections (BSI).

Methods: A survey was conducted at Rambam Health Care Campus, targeting hospitalized patients over 18 years old. Participants were asked to score the importance of various outcomes on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being most important. We calculated the mean and median and dispersion measures per outcome.

Results: 732 randomly selected patients were approached; 378 were not available due to technical reasons. Of the remaining 354 approached to take the survey, 300 consented and participated in the study. The median age was 51.9 years, with 55.3% female. Death was scored as the most important outcome, while the length of hospital stay was the least important.

Conclusions: Eliciting patient views on outcome importance was challenging but revealed key insights. Patients prioritized death, functional decline, and the development of secondary infections. Non-clinical outcomes, such as microbiological failure, were less clearly understood. Future studies should focus on clinical outcomes and include larger, more diverse patient populations to enhance the relevance of BSI trials.

在成年住院患者中开展的一项调查:对比较血流感染治疗方案的临床试验结果进行患者评分。
目的:患者对临床试验结果的看法对于设计有意义的试验至关重要。由于患者是治疗的主要接受者,因此必须关注对患者有价值的结果。我们计划开展一项研究,让患者参与确定血流感染(BSI)干预试验的终点和优先次序:方法:我们在兰巴姆医疗保健园区针对 18 岁以上的住院患者进行了一项调查。要求参与者对各种结果的重要性进行打分,分值从 1 到 10,10 为最重要。我们计算了每个结果的平均值、中位数和离散度:我们随机选取了 732 名患者,其中 378 名患者因技术原因无法参加问卷调查。在剩下的 354 名接受调查的患者中,有 300 人同意并参与了研究。中位年龄为 51.9 岁,女性占 55.3%。死亡是最重要的结果,而住院时间则是最不重要的结果:结论:征求患者对结果重要性的看法具有挑战性,但揭示了关键的见解。患者优先考虑死亡、功能衰退和继发感染。至于非临床结果,如微生物学失败,则不太清楚。未来的研究应重点关注临床结果,并纳入更多、更多样化的患者群体,以提高 BSI 试验的相关性。
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
CiteScore
25.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
441
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Microbiology and Infection (CMI) is a monthly journal published by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. It focuses on peer-reviewed papers covering basic and applied research in microbiology, infectious diseases, virology, parasitology, immunology, and epidemiology as they relate to therapy and diagnostics.
×
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