Measuring outcomes in randomized prospective trials in palliative care

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, United States
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (Impact Factor: 2.74). 08/2007; 34(1 Suppl):S7-S19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.04.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Palliative care aims to improve the quality of life of patients and their families and reduce suffering from life-threatening illness. In assessing palliative care efficacy, researchers must consider a broad range of potential outcomes, including those experienced by the patient's family/caregivers, clinicians, and the health care system. The purpose of this article is to summarize the discussions and recommendations of an Outcomes Working Group convened to advance the palliative care research agenda, particularly in the context of randomized controlled trials. These recommendations address the conceptualization of palliative care outcomes, sources of outcomes data, application of outcome measures in clinical trials, and the methodological challenges to outcome measurement in palliative care populations. As other fields have developed and refined methodological approaches that address their particular research needs, palliative care researchers must do the same to answer important clinical questions in rigorous and credible ways.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quality of life (QOL) is the main outcome measure for patients with advanced cancer at the end of life (EOL). The McGill Quality of Life questionnaire (MQOL) is designed specifically for palliative care patients, and has been translated and validated in Hong Kong and Taiwan. This study aimed to investigate the QOL of patients with advanced cancer using the MQOL-Taiwan version after cultural adaptation to the Chinese mainland. A cross-sectional survey design was used. QOL data from patients with advanced cancer were gathered from 13 hospitals including five tertiary hospitals, six secondary hospitals, and community health care service centers in Shanghai and analyzed. QOL was assessed using the MQOL-Chinese version. Statistical analyses were performed using descriptive statistics, multiple regression analysis, and Spearman rank correlation analysis. A total of 531 cancer patients (297 male, 234 female) in 13 hospitals were recruited into the study and administered the MQOL-Chinese. The score of the support subscale was highest (6.82), and the score of the existential well-being subscale was the lowest (4.65). The five physical symptoms most frequently listed on the MQOL-Chinese were pain, loss of appetite, fatigue, powerless, and dyspnea. Participants' sex, educational level, number of children, and disclosure of the disease, and hospital size were associated with their overall QOL. The Spearman rank correlation analysis found that Karnofsky Performance Status scores correlated with the MQOL-Chinese single item score, physical well-being, psychological well-being, existential well-being, and support domains (P<0.05). Our results revealed the aspects of QOL that need better attention for Chinese palliative care patients with advanced cancer. The association between the characteristics of patients, Karnofsky Performance Status and their QOL also were identified.
    Journal of pain and symptom management 05/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.02.016 · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context A major barrier to widening and sustaining palliative care service provision is the requirement for better selection and use of outcome measures. Service commissioning is increasingly based on patient, carer, and service outcomes as opposed to service activity. Objectives To generate recommendations and consensus for research in palliative and end-of-life care on the properties of the best outcome measures, enhancing the validity of proxy-reported data and optimal data collection time points. Methods An international expert “workshop” was convened and an online consensus survey was undertaken using the MORECare Transparent Expert Consultation to generate recommendations and level of agreement. We focused on three areas: 1) measurement properties, 2) use of proxies, and 3) measurement timing. Data analysis comprised descriptive analysis of aggregate scores and collation of narrative comments. Results There were 31 workshop attendees; 29 recommendations were included in the online survey, completed by 28 experts. The top three recommendations by area were the following: 1) the properties of the best outcome measures are responsive to change over time and capture clinically important data, 2) to enhance the validity of proxy data requires clear and specific guidelines to aid lay individuals' and/or professionals' completion of proxy measures, and 3) data collection time points need clear identification to establish a baseline. Conclusion Outcome measurement in palliative and end-of-life care requires the use of psychometrically robust measures that are clinically responsive, with defined data collection time points to establish a baseline and clear administration guidelines to complete proxy measures. To further the field requires clinical imperatives to more closely inform recommendations on outcome measurement.
    Journal of pain and symptom management 12/2013; 46(6):925–937. DOI:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.01.010 · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The specific aim of the PEACE pilot study was to determine the feasibility of a fully powered study to test the effectiveness of an in-home geriatrics/palliative care interdisciplinary care management intervention for improving measures of utilization, quality of care, and quality of life in enrollees of Ohio's community-based long-term care Medicaid waiver program, PASSPORT. This was a randomized pilot study (n=40 intervention [IG], n=40 usual care) involving new enrollees into PASSPORT who were >60 years old. This was an in-home interdisciplinary chronic illness care management intervention by PASSPORT care managers collaborating with a hospital-based geriatrics/palliative care specialist team and the consumer's primary care physician. This pilot was not powered to test hypotheses; instead, it was hypothesis generating. Primary outcomes measured symptom control, mood, decision making, spirituality, and quality of life. Little difference was seen in primary outcomes; however, utilization favored the IG. At 12 months, the IG had fewer hospital visits (50% vs. 55%, P=0.65) and fewer nursing facility admissions (22.5% vs. 32.5%, P=0.32). Using hospital-based specialists interfacing with a community agency to provide a team-based approach to care of consumers with chronic illnesses was found to be feasible. Lack of change in symptom control or quality of life outcome measures may be related to the tools used, as these were validated in populations closer to the end of life. Data from this pilot study will be used to calculate the sample size needed for a fully powered trial.
    Population Health Management 10/2013; 17(2). DOI:10.1089/pop.2013.0017 · 1.35 Impact Factor