Understanding What Matters Most to Patients: Establishing the Validity of a Best-Worst Scaling Survey

Hematologic Neoplasms Clinical Trial

Official title:

Understanding What Matters Most to Patients: Establishing the Validity of a Best-Worst Scaling Survey

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05061095
• Other study ID #: LCCC 2136
• Status: Completed
• Start date: March 21, 2022
• Est. completion date: September 26, 2023

Study information

• Verified date: April 2023
• Source: UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

This study will evaluate the validity of using a survey to quantify patient preferences at the point-of-care and the potential effectiveness of the survey to improve goal-concordant care. The primary hypothesis is that by identifying the strength of patient preferences for outcomes with this survey clinicians will be able to improve goal-concordant care by aligning clinical recommendations with patients' preferences. This study will have 50 patients with newly diagnosed hematologic malignancy complete the survey throughout their disease course (up to 2 years) and conduct qualitative interviews with a subset (n = 20) of participants. The information obtained from these participants will be used to refine the survey. Interviews with oncologists and palliative care specialists (up to 10) will inform implementation.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 51
• Est. completion date: September 26, 2023
• Est. primary completion date: September 26, 2023
• Gender: All
• Age group: 60 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Confirmed new diagnosis of one of the following hematologic malignancies: aggressive lymphoma, multiple myeloma, CLL, CML, AML, ALL, MDS EB1 or EB2

• Age=60

• Ability to read, understand, and communicate fluently in English

• Ability to understand and comply with study procedures

• Willingness and ability to provide written informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

• Dementia, altered mental status, or psychiatric condition that would prohibit the understanding or rendering of informed consent or participation in the discrete choice experiment.

• Significant medical conditions, as assessed by the investigators, that would substantially increase the burden on the patient to complete study assessments (such as multiorgan failure, respiratory failure, or other critical illness).

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Hematologic Neoplasms

Intervention

Other:
• Assessment Surveys
Patients will complete surveys in three periods. An initial baseline survey, longitudinal assessments completed every 2 weeks over the course of the first three months on study (6 times maximum), and extended assessments that will happen every 3 months after the initial longitudinal period up to 2 years on the study (7 times maximum). Baseline questionnaire will collect demographic and background medical record information. Longitudinal assessments will consist of a BWS questionnaire (patients rate importance of 7 treatment goals), decisional conflict scales, EQ-5D-5L, distress thermometer, and items from PRO-CTCAE. Extended assessments will use same questionnaires as longitudinal assessments.
• Qualitative Interviews
Patients will participate in 2 interviews (1 initial interview, 1 follow up). These will be cognitive interviews focusing on establishing content validity for BWS questionnaire. Will establish patient understanding of questions asked in BWS, understanding of how preferences affect treatment decisions, expected outcomes, and feedback from patients on other potentially important attributes not included in BWS.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center	Chapel Hill	North Carolina

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (8)

Bridges JF, Oakes AH, Reinhart CA, Voyard E, O'Donoghue B. Developing and piloting an instrument to prioritize the worries of patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018 Apr 27;12:647-655. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S151752. eCollection 2018. — View Citation

El-Jawahri A, Nelson-Lowe M, VanDusen H, Traeger L, Abel GA, Greer JA, Fathi A, Steensma DP, LeBlanc TW, Li Z, DeAngelo D, Wadleigh M, Hobbs G, Foster J, Brunner A, Amrein P, Stone RM, Temel JS. Patient-Clinician Discordance in Perceptions of Treatment Risks and Benefits in Older Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Oncologist. 2019 Feb;24(2):247-254. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0317. Epub 2018 Aug 23. — View Citation

LeBlanc TW, Fish LJ, Bloom CT, El-Jawahri A, Davis DM, Locke SC, Steinhauser KE, Pollak KI. Patient experiences of acute myeloid leukemia: A qualitative study about diagnosis, illness understanding, and treatment decision-making. Psychooncology. 2017 Dec;26(12):2063-2068. doi: 10.1002/pon.4309. Epub 2016 Dec 19. — View Citation

Loh KP, Abdallah M, Kadambi S, Wells M, Kumar AJ, Mendler JH, Liesveld JL, Wittink M, O'Dwyer K, Becker MW, McHugh C, Stock W, Majhail NS, Wildes TM, Duberstein P, Mohile SG, Klepin HD. Treatment decision-making in acute myeloid leukemia: a qualitative study of older adults and community oncologists. Leuk Lymphoma. 2021 Feb;62(2):387-398. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2020.1832662. Epub 2020 Oct 11. — View Citation

Richardson DR, Crossnohere NL, Seo J, Estey E, O'Donoghue B, Smith BD, Bridges JFP. Age at Diagnosis and Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in AML: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Meaningful Benefits. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 May;29(5):942-948. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1277. Epub 2020 Mar 4. — View Citation

Richardson DR, Oakes AH, Crossnohere NL, Rathsmill G, Reinhart C, O'Donoghue B, Bridges JFP. Prioritizing the worries of AML patients: Quantifying patient experience using best-worst scaling. Psychooncology. 2021 Jul;30(7):1104-1111. doi: 10.1002/pon.5652. Epub 2021 Feb 27. — View Citation

Rood JAJ, Nauta IH, Witte BI, Stam F, van Zuuren FJ, Manenschijn A, Huijgens PC, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Zweegman S. Shared decision-making and providing information among newly diagnosed patients with hematological malignancies and their informal caregivers: Not "one-size-fits-all". Psychooncology. 2017 Dec;26(12):2040-2047. doi: 10.1002/pon.4414. Epub 2017 Apr 17. — View Citation

Seo J, Smith BD, Estey E, Voyard E, O' Donoghue B, Bridges JFP. Developing an instrument to assess patient preferences for benefits and risks of treating acute myeloid leukemia to promote patient-focused drug development. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018 Dec;34(12):2031-2039. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1456414. Epub 2018 Apr 27. — View Citation

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Content validity of Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) survey	Cognitive interviewing will be used to evaluate the content validity of using a BWS survey to quantify the preferences of older patients with hematologic malignancies at the point-of-care. BWS survey asks patients a series of questions where they choose one attribute as best and one as worst - the 7 included in this survey are maintaining usual activities, living longer, avoiding dependence on others, avoiding short-term side effects, avoiding long-term side effects, avoiding hospitalizations, and avoiding high out-of-pocket costs.	3 months after treatment decision
Secondary	Acceptability of BWS survey to patients	Number of patients who respond with agree/strongly agree to "I found survey acceptable to clarify my preferences"	Up to 7 days after treatment decision
Secondary	Preliminary efficiency of BWS survey	Number of patients who respond moderately effective/very affective to "how effective was the survey to help you and your doctor choose a treatment that was consistent with your goals?"	Up to 7 days after treatment decision