EORTC "写入三种症状/问题"(WISP)的可接受性和实用性:用于评估癌症患者症状的简短开放式工具。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Leslye Rojas-Concha, Juan Ignacio Arrarrás, Thierry Conroy, Tara Chalk, Monica Guberti, Bernhard Holzner, Olga Husson, Dagmara Kuliś, Omar Shamieh, Claire Piccinin, María José Puga, Gudrun Rohde, Mogens Groenvold
{"title":"EORTC \"写入三种症状/问题\"(WISP)的可接受性和实用性:用于评估癌症患者症状的简短开放式工具。","authors":"Leslye Rojas-Concha, Juan Ignacio Arrarrás, Thierry Conroy, Tara Chalk, Monica Guberti, Bernhard Holzner, Olga Husson, Dagmara Kuliś, Omar Shamieh, Claire Piccinin, María José Puga, Gudrun Rohde, Mogens Groenvold","doi":"10.1186/s12955-024-02244-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of open-ended questions supplementing static questionnaires with closed questions may facilitate the recognition of symptoms and toxicities. The open-ended 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems (WISP)' instrument permits patients to report additional symptoms/problems not covered by selected EORTC questionnaires. We evaluated the acceptability and usefulness of WISP with cancer patients receiving active and palliative care/treatment in Austria, Chile, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a literature search on validated instruments for cancer patients including open-ended questions and analyzing their responses. WISP was translated into eight languages and pilot tested. WISP translations were pre-tested together with EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-C15-PAL and relevant modules, followed by patient interviews to evaluate their understanding about WISP. Proportions were used to summarize patient responses obtained from interviews and WISP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the seven instruments identified in the literature, only the free text collected from the PRO-CTAE has been analyzed previously. In our study, 161 cancer patients participated in the pre-testing and interviews (50% in active treatment). Qualitative interviews showed high acceptability of WISP. Among the 295 symptoms/problems reported using WISP, skin problems, sore mouth and bleeding were more prevalent in patients in active treatment, whereas numbness/tingling, dry mouth and existential problems were more prevalent in patients in palliative care/treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EORTC WISP instrument was found to be acceptable and useful for symptom assessment in cancer patients. WISP improves the identification of symptoms/problems not assessed by cancer-generic questionnaires and therefore, we recommend its use alongside the EORTC questionnaires.</p>","PeriodicalId":12980,"journal":{"name":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","volume":"22 1","pages":"28"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10964595/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptability and usefulness of the EORTC 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems' (WISP): a brief open-ended instrument for symptom assessment in cancer patients.\",\"authors\":\"Leslye Rojas-Concha, Juan Ignacio Arrarrás, Thierry Conroy, Tara Chalk, Monica Guberti, Bernhard Holzner, Olga Husson, Dagmara Kuliś, Omar Shamieh, Claire Piccinin, María José Puga, Gudrun Rohde, Mogens Groenvold\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12955-024-02244-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of open-ended questions supplementing static questionnaires with closed questions may facilitate the recognition of symptoms and toxicities. The open-ended 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems (WISP)' instrument permits patients to report additional symptoms/problems not covered by selected EORTC questionnaires. We evaluated the acceptability and usefulness of WISP with cancer patients receiving active and palliative care/treatment in Austria, Chile, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a literature search on validated instruments for cancer patients including open-ended questions and analyzing their responses. WISP was translated into eight languages and pilot tested. WISP translations were pre-tested together with EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-C15-PAL and relevant modules, followed by patient interviews to evaluate their understanding about WISP. Proportions were used to summarize patient responses obtained from interviews and WISP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the seven instruments identified in the literature, only the free text collected from the PRO-CTAE has been analyzed previously. In our study, 161 cancer patients participated in the pre-testing and interviews (50% in active treatment). Qualitative interviews showed high acceptability of WISP. Among the 295 symptoms/problems reported using WISP, skin problems, sore mouth and bleeding were more prevalent in patients in active treatment, whereas numbness/tingling, dry mouth and existential problems were more prevalent in patients in palliative care/treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EORTC WISP instrument was found to be acceptable and useful for symptom assessment in cancer patients. WISP improves the identification of symptoms/problems not assessed by cancer-generic questionnaires and therefore, we recommend its use alongside the EORTC questionnaires.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12980,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10964595/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-024-02244-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-024-02244-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用开放式问题来补充封闭式问题的静态问卷可能有助于识别症状和毒性。开放式 "写入三个症状/问题(WISP)"工具允许患者报告选定的 EORTC 问卷未涵盖的其他症状/问题。我们评估了奥地利、智利、法国、约旦、荷兰、挪威、西班牙和英国接受积极治疗和姑息治疗的癌症患者对 WISP 的接受度和实用性:我们对针对癌症患者的有效工具进行了文献检索,其中包括开放式问题,并对他们的回答进行了分析。WISP 被翻译成八种语言并进行了试点测试。WISP 的翻译与 EORTC QLQ-C30、QLQ-C15-PAL 和相关模块一起进行了预先测试,随后对患者进行了访谈,以评估他们对 WISP 的理解。结果:在文献中确定的七种工具中,只有从 PRO-CTAE 中收集的自由文本以前进行过分析。在我们的研究中,161 名癌症患者参加了预测试和访谈(50% 正在接受治疗)。定性访谈显示,患者对 WISP 的接受度很高。在使用 WISP 报告的 295 个症状/问题中,皮肤问题、口腔溃疡和出血在接受积极治疗的患者中更为普遍,而麻木/刺痛、口干和生存问题在接受姑息治疗的患者中更为普遍:结论:研究发现,EORTC WISP 工具对癌症患者的症状评估是可接受和有用的。WISP 能更好地识别癌症通用问卷无法评估的症状/问题,因此,我们建议将其与 EORTC 问卷一起使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acceptability and usefulness of the EORTC 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems' (WISP): a brief open-ended instrument for symptom assessment in cancer patients.

Background: The use of open-ended questions supplementing static questionnaires with closed questions may facilitate the recognition of symptoms and toxicities. The open-ended 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems (WISP)' instrument permits patients to report additional symptoms/problems not covered by selected EORTC questionnaires. We evaluated the acceptability and usefulness of WISP with cancer patients receiving active and palliative care/treatment in Austria, Chile, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Methods: We conducted a literature search on validated instruments for cancer patients including open-ended questions and analyzing their responses. WISP was translated into eight languages and pilot tested. WISP translations were pre-tested together with EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-C15-PAL and relevant modules, followed by patient interviews to evaluate their understanding about WISP. Proportions were used to summarize patient responses obtained from interviews and WISP.

Results: From the seven instruments identified in the literature, only the free text collected from the PRO-CTAE has been analyzed previously. In our study, 161 cancer patients participated in the pre-testing and interviews (50% in active treatment). Qualitative interviews showed high acceptability of WISP. Among the 295 symptoms/problems reported using WISP, skin problems, sore mouth and bleeding were more prevalent in patients in active treatment, whereas numbness/tingling, dry mouth and existential problems were more prevalent in patients in palliative care/treatment.

Conclusions: The EORTC WISP instrument was found to be acceptable and useful for symptom assessment in cancer patients. WISP improves the identification of symptoms/problems not assessed by cancer-generic questionnaires and therefore, we recommend its use alongside the EORTC questionnaires.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.80%
发文量
154
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes considers original manuscripts on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment for evaluation of medical and psychosocial interventions. It also considers approaches and studies on psychometric properties of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures, including cultural validation of instruments if they provide information about the impact of interventions. The journal publishes study protocols and reviews summarising the present state of knowledge concerning a particular aspect of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures. Reviews should generally follow systematic review methodology. Comments on articles and letters to the editor are welcome.
×
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