Evaluating cancer patient-reported experience measures against health literacy best practices

被引:0
|
作者
Giannopoulos, Eleni [1 ]
Moody, Lesley [4 ,5 ]
Mackinnon, Rebecca [1 ,2 ]
Gill, Bhajan [1 ,3 ]
Giuliani, Meredith E. [1 ,6 ,7 ]
Papadakos, Janet K. [1 ,5 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Princess Margaret Canc Ctr, Canc Hlth Literacy Res Ctr, 585 Univ Ave,ELLICSR PMB B-130, Toronto, ON M5G 2N2, Canada
[2] Univ Guelph, Sch Publ Hlth, Guelph, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Western Ontario, Sch Publ Hlth, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Princess Margaret Canc Ctr, Ambulatory Care, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Toronto, Inst Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, Canada
[6] Princess Margaret Canc Ctr, Radiat Med Program, Toronto, ON, Canada
[7] Univ Hlth Network, Inst Educ Res, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
Patient-reported experience measures; Patient experience; Health literacy; Cancer; Survey development; Patient-centered care; OUTCOME MEASURES; MEASURES PREMS; READABILITY; PROVIDERS;
D O I
10.1007/s00520-024-08838-z
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
PurposePositive patient experiences can lead to better adherence to cancer treatment and greater patient health outcomes. The primary aim of this descriptive study was to determine whether commonly used cancer PREMs have been developed according to health literacy best practices. The secondary and third aims were to examine the development of PREMs and to assess their comprehensiveness against principles of patient-centered care.MethodsTo assess adherence to best practice literacy principles regarding readability and understandability of commonly used cancer PREMs, three validated readability calculators and a validated instrument were utilized. To better understand how PREMs were developed, data about survey items, patient involvement, and expert consultation were collected. Finally, the Picker framework was used to evaluate the comprehensiveness of PREMs against principles of patient-centered care.ResultsThirty-five PREMs studies met inclusion criteria for the study. The mean reading grade level of cancer PREMs was 9.7 (SD = 0.75, range = 8.2-11.2) with best practice recommendation being a grade 6 reading grade level. Twenty-eight PREMs were rated on understandability, with a mean score of 74% (SD = 10.6, range = 46-93%, with optimal score of greater than 80%). The mean number of items across PREMs was 49 (SD = 31, range = 13-136). Recommendations for the number of items to include in a questionnaire is 25-30 items. Most PREMs (n = 33, 94.3%) asked >= 1 double-barreled question. All PREMs addressed >= 2 patient-centered care principles.ConclusionCancer PREMs included in this study did not meet evidence-informed thresholds for readability and understandability. As such, it is possible that there may be gaps in how we understand the care experiences of low health literacy populations. Future development of PREMs should engage patients with low health literacy to ensure their perspectives are accurately captured and that PREMs are designed to meet the needs of all patients.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Best Practices for the Electronic Implementation and Migration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
    Mowlem, Florence D.
    Elash, Celeste A.
    Dumais, Kelly M.
    Haenel, Estelle
    O'Donohoe, Paul
    Olt, Jennifer
    Kalpadakis-Smith, Alexandra V.
    James, Ben
    Balestrieri, Grazia
    Becker, Kayci
    Newara, Melissa C.
    Kern, Scottie
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2024, 27 (01) : 79 - 94
  • [2] Barriers and Best Practices for the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Emergency Medicine
    Lin, Michelle P.
    Kligler, Sophie Karwoska
    Friedman, Benjamin W.
    Kim, Howard
    Rising, Kristin
    Samuels-Kalow, Margaret
    Eucker, Stephanie A.
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2023, 82 (01) : 11 - 21
  • [3] Using patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures to elevate the quality of healthcare
    Casaca, Pedro
    Schafer, Willemijn
    Nunes, Ana Beatriz
    Sousa, Paulo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2023, 35 (04)
  • [4] Quantifying the patient experience with patient-reported outcome measures
    Lapin, Brittany
    Bautista, Joceyln
    Bae, Charles
    Katzan, Irene
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2017, 26 (01) : 98 - 98
  • [5] Patient-reported experience and outcome measures during treatment for gastroesophageal cancer
    Sundbom, Magnus
    Ekfjord, Lena
    Willman, Maria
    Hedberg, Jakob
    Randeniye, Stephan
    Christensen, Marianne
    Kildal, Morten
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE, 2020, 29 (02)
  • [6] Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Evaluating Cancer Symptoms: A Systematic Review
    Eliana Perez-Alfonso, Karen
    Sanchez-Martinez, Vanessa
    SEMINARS IN ONCOLOGY NURSING, 2021, 37 (02)
  • [7] Exploring the profile of baseline patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in an outpatient oncology setting
    Webber, Kate
    Cook, Olivia
    White, Michelle
    Kwok, Alastair
    Segelov, Eva
    ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 16 : 200 - 201
  • [8] Evaluating cancer patient-reported outcome measures: Readability and implications for clinical use
    Papadakos, Janet K.
    Charow, Rebecca C.
    Papadakos, Christine J.
    Moody, Lesley J.
    Giuliani, Meredith E.
    CANCER, 2019, 125 (08) : 1350 - 1356
  • [9] Measuring the Patient Experience of Mental Health Care: A Systematic and Critical Review of Patient-Reported Experience Measures
    Fernandes, Sara
    Fond, Guillaume
    Zendjidjian, Xavier Y.
    Baumstarck, Karine
    Lancon, Christophe
    Berna, Fabrice
    Schurhoff, Franck
    Aouizerate, Bruno
    Henry, Chantal
    Etain, Bruno
    Samalin, Ludovic
    Leboyer, Marion
    Llorca, Pierre-Michel
    Coldefy, Magali
    Auquier, Pascal
    Boyer, Laurent
    PATIENT PREFERENCE AND ADHERENCE, 2020, 14 : 2147 - 2161
  • [10] Visualization of patient-reported experience measures: opportunities for quality and health system improvements
    Kemp, Kyle
    Santana, Maria
    Quan, Hude
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2018, 27 : S1 - S2