Asking the right questions to get the right answers: using cognitive interviews to review the acceptability, comprehension and clinical meaningfulness of patient self-report adverse event items in oncology patients

Authors

  • Patricia Holch Patient Reported Outcomes Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Lorraine Warrington Patient Reported Outcomes Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Barbara Potrata Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Lucy Ziegler Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Ceri Hector Patient Reported Outcomes Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Ada Keding Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
  • Clare Harley School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Kate Absolom Patient Reported Outcomes Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Carolyn Morris Patient Representative eRAPID Project Management Group, UK
  • Leon Bamforth Patient Reported Outcomes Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Galina Velikova Patient Reported Outcomes Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2016.1234138

Abstract

Background: Standardized reporting of treatment-related adverse events (AE) is essential in clinical trials, usually achieved by using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) reported by clinicians. Patient-reported adverse events (PRAE) may add value to clinician assessments, providing patient perspective on subjective toxicity. We developed an online patient symptom report and self-management system for real-time reporting and managing AE during cancer treatment integrated with electronic patient records (eRAPID). As part of this program we developed a patient version of the CTCAE (version 4.0), rephrasing terminology into a self-report format. We explored patient understanding of these items via cognitive interviews.

Material and method: Sixty patients (33 female, 27 male) undergoing treatment were purposively sampled by age, gender and tumor group (median age 61.5, range 35–84, 12 breast, 12 gynecological, 13 colorectal, 12 lung and 11 renal). Twenty-one PRAE items were completed on a touch-screen computer. Subsequent audio-recorded cognitive interviews and thematic analysis explored patients’ comprehension of items via verbal probing techniques during three interview rounds (n = 20 patients/round).

Results: In total 33 item amendments were made; 29% related to question comprehension, 68% response option and 3% order effects. These amendments to phrasing and language improved patient understanding but maintained CTCAE grading and key medical information. Changes were endorsed by members of a patient advisory group (N = 11).

Conclusion: Item adaptations resulted in a bank of consistently interpreted self-report AE items for use in future research program. In-depth analysis of items through cognitive interviews is an important step towards developing an internationally valid system for PRAE, thus improving patient safety and experiences during cancer treatment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2016-10-02

How to Cite

Holch, P., Warrington, L., Potrata, B., Ziegler, L., Hector, C., Keding, A., … Velikova, G. (2016). Asking the right questions to get the right answers: using cognitive interviews to review the acceptability, comprehension and clinical meaningfulness of patient self-report adverse event items in oncology patients. Acta Oncologica, 55(9-10), 1220–1226. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2016.1234138