Patient engagement in the design and execution of urologic oncology research

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 35, Issue 9, 2017, Pages 552-558

  Lee, Daniel J ^a   Avulova, Svetlana ^a   Conwill, Ralph ^b   Barocas, Daniel A ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT INGRAM CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Patient engagement; Patient centered outcomes; Patient reported outcomes

Indexed keywords

BLADDER CANCER; CANCER RESEARCH; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EMBASE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SHARED DECISION MAKING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; URINE INCONTINENCE; UROLOGY; WEB OF SCIENCE; FEMALE; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PROCEDURES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; UROLOGY;

EID: 85025809506     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.07.002     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. 2001, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
2. Fagerlin, A., Sepucha, K.R., Couper, M.P., Levin, C.A., Singer, E., Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., Patients’ knowledge about 9 common health conditions: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making 30 (2010), 35S–52S.
3. Nabozny, M.J., Kruser, J.M., Steffens, N.M., et al. Patient-reported limitations to surgical buy-in: a qualitative study of patients facing high-risk surgery. Ann Surg 265 (2017), 97–102.
4. Institute of Medicine. Dying in America: improving quality and honoring individual preferences near the end of life. http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2014/Dying-in-America-Improving-Quality-and-Honoring-Individual-Preferences-Near-the-End-of-Life.aspx [released September 17, 2014; accessed March 1, 2017].
5. Gopalakrishna, G., Leeflang, M.M., Davenport, C., et al. Barriers to making recommendations about medical tests: a qualitative study of European guideline developers. BMJ Open, 6, 2016, e010549.
6. DiMatteo, M.R., Haskard, K.B., Williams, S.L., Health beliefs, disease severity, and patient adherence: a meta-analysis. Med Care 45 (2007), 521–528.
7. Couët, N., Desroches, S., Robitaille, H., et al. Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expect 18 (2015), 542–561.
8. Joseph-Williams, N., Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 94 (2014), 291–309.
9. Frosch, D.L., May, S.G., Rendle, K.A., Tietbohl, C., Elwyn, G., Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled “difficult” among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Aff (Millwood) 31 (2012), 1030–1038.
10. Adams, J.R., Elwyn, G., Légaré, F., Frosch, D.L., Communicating with physicians about medical decisions: a reluctance to disagree. Arch Intern Med 172 (2012), 1184–1186.
11. Levinson, W., Lesser, C.S., Epstein, R.M., Developing physician communication skills for patient-centered care. Health Aff (Millwood) 29 (2010), 1310–1318.
12. O'Connor, A.M., Bennett, C.L., Stacey, D., et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2009 Jul 8, CD001431, 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub2.
13. Carman, K.L., Maurer, M., Mangrum, R., et al. Understanding an informed public's views on the role of evidence in making health care decisions. Health Aff (Millwood) 35 (2016), 566–574.
14. Carman, K.L., Maurer, M., Yegian, J.M., et al. Evidence that consumers are skeptical about evidence-based health care. Health Aff (Millwood) 29 (2010), 1400–1406.
15. Frank, L., Basch, E., Selby, J.V., Institute P-COR. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. J Am Med Assoc 312 (2014), 1513–1514.
16. “Fact Sheets.” Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute. http://www.pcori.org/about-us/fact-sheets [accessed March 15, 2017].
17. Robbins, M., Tufte, J., Hsu, C., Learning to swim with the experts: experiences of two patient co-investigators for a project funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Perm J 20 (2016), 85–88.
18. Carman, K.L., Dardess, P., Maurer, M., et al. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff (Millwood) 32 (2013), 223–231.
19. “Research and Results: Explore Our Portfolio” Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. www.pcori.org [accessed March 15, 2017].
20. Lavallée, L.T., Schramm, D., Witiuk, K., et al. Peri-operative morbidity associated with radical cystectomy in a multicenter database of community and academic hospitals. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e111281.
21. Forsythe, L.P., Ellis, L.E., Edmundson, L., et al. Patient and stakeholder engagement in the PCORI Pilot Projects: description and lessons learned. J Gen Intern Med 31 (2016), 13–21.
22. Staniszewska, S., Jones, N., Newburn, M., Marshall, S., User involvement in the development of a research bid: barriers, enablers and impacts. Health Expect 10 (2007), 173–183.
23. Lophatananon, A., Tyndale-Biscoe, S., Malcolm, E., et al. The James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for prostate cancer research: an integrative methodology based on patient and clinician participation. BJU Int 108 (2011), 1040–1043.
24. Lindenmeyer, A., Hearnshaw, H., Sturt, J., Ormerod, R., Aitchison, G., Assessment of the benefits of user involvement in health research from the Warwick Diabetes Care Research User Group: a qualitative case study. Health Expect 10 (2007), 268–277.
25. Edwards, V., Wyatt, K., Logan, S., Britten, N., Consulting parents about the design of a randomized controlled trial of osteopathy for children with cerebral palsy. Health Expect 14 (2011), 429–438.
26. Terry, S.F., Terry, P.F., Rauen, K.A., Uitto, J., Bercovitch, L.G., Advocacy groups as research organizations: the PXE International example. Nat Rev Genet 8 (2007), 157–164.
27. Barber, R., Beresford, P., Boote, J., Cooper, C., Faulkner, A., Evaluating the impact of service user involvement on research: a prospective case study. Int J Consum Stud 35 (2011), 609–615, 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01017.x.
28. Fern, L.A., Taylor, R.M., Whelan, J., et al. The art of age-appropriate care: reflecting on a conceptual model of the cancer experience for teenagers and young adults. Cancer Nurs 36 (2013), E27–E38.
29. Boudreau K, Guinan E, Lakhani K, Riedl C. The Novelty Paradox and Bias for Normal Science: Evidence from Randomized Medical Grant Proposal Evaluations. HBS Working Paper No. 13-053. 2012. http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7173.html [accessed March 15, 2017].
30. Nicholson, J.M., Ioannidis, J.P., Research grants: Conform and be funded. Nature 492 (2012), 34–36.
31. Andejeski, Y., Bisceglio, I.T., Dickersin, K., et al. Quantitative impact of including consumers in the scientific review of breast cancer research proposals. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 11 (2002), 379–388.
32. Andejeski, Y., Breslau, E.S., Hart, E., et al. Benefits and drawbacks of including consumer reviewers in the scientific merit review of breast cancer research. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 11 (2002), 119–136.
33. Rich, I.M., Andejeski, Y., Alciati, M.H., et al. Perspective from the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program. Breast Dis 10 (1998), 33–45.
34. Armstrong, N., Hearnshaw, H., Powell, J., Dale, J., Stakeholder perspectives on the development of a virtual clinic for diabetes care: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res, 9, 2007, e23.
35. Steffens, N.M., Tucholka, J.L., Nabozny, M.J., Schmick, A.E., Brasel, K.J., Schwarze, M.L., Engaging patients, health care professionals, and community members to improve preoperative decision making for older adults facing high-risk surgery. JAMA Surg 151 (2016), 938–945.
36. Xian, Y., Wu, J., O'Brien, E.C., et al. Real world effectiveness of warfarin among ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation: observational analysis from Patient-Centered Research into Outcomes Stroke Patients Prefer and Effectiveness Research (PROSPER) study. Br Med J, 351, 2015, h3786.
37. Snyder, C.F., Smith, K.C., Bantug, E.T., et al. What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability. Cancer, 2017.
38. Minneci, P.C., Nacion, K.M., Lodwick, D.L., Cooper, J.N., Deans, K.J., Improving Surgical Research by Involving Stakeholders. JAMA Surg 151 (2016), 579–580.
39. Barocas, D.A., Alvarez, J., Resnick, M.J., et al. Association between radiation therapy, surgery, or observation for localized prostate cancer and patient-reported outcomes after 3 years. J Am Med Assoc 317 (2017), 1126–1140.
40. Chen, R.C., Basak, R., Meyer, A.M., et al. Association between choice of radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance and patient-reported quality of life among men with localized prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 317 (2017), 1141–1150.
41. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: version 5.1.0. Lodon: Cochrane Collaboration. Chapter 17: Patient-reported outcomes. Available from: http://www.cocrane-handbook.org.
42. Basch, E., Artz, D., Iasonos, A., et al. Evaluation of an online platform for cancer patient self-reporting of chemotherapy toxicities. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14 (2007), 264–268.
43. Berry, D.L., Blumenstein, B.A., Halpenny, B., et al. Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 29 (2011), 1029–1035.
44. Crane, H.M., Lober, W., Webster, E., et al. Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in an HIV clinic setting: the first 100 patients. Curr HIV Res 5 (2007), 109–118.
45. Ayers, D.C., Li, W., Harrold, L., Allison, J., Franklin, P.D., Preoperative pain and function profiles reflect consistent TKA patient selection among US surgeons. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473 (2015), 76–81.
46. Ayers, D.C., Zheng, H., Franklin, P.D., Integrating patient-reported outcomes into orthopaedic clinical practice: proof of concept from FORCE-TJR. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471 (2013), 3419–3425.
47. Margolis, P.A., Peterson, L.E., Seid, M., Collaborative Chronic Care Networks (C3Ns) to transform chronic illness care. Pediatrics 131:Suppl. 4 (2013), S219–S223.
48. Forsberg, H.H., Nelson, E.C., Reid, R., et al. Using patient-reported outcomes in routine practice: three novel use cases and implications. J Ambul Care Manage 38 (2015), 188–195.
49. Todd, B.L., Feuerstein, M., Gehrke, A., Hydeman, J., Beaupin, L., Identifying the unmet needs of breast cancer patients post-primary treatment: the Cancer Survivor Profile (CSPro). J Cancer Surviv 9 (2015), 137–160 [quiz 51–60].
50. Stover, A., Irwin, D.E., Chen, R.C., et al. Integrating patient-reported outcome measures into routine cancer care: cancer patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of acceptability and value. EGEMS (Washington, DC), 3, 2015, 1169.
51. Katzan, I., Speck, M., Dopler, C., et al. The knowledge program: an innovative, comprehensive electronic data capture system and warehouse. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011 (2011), 683–692.
52. Sanger, P.C., Hartzler, A., Han, S.M., et al. Patient perspectives on post-discharge surgical site infections: towards a patient-centered mobile health solution. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e114016.
53. Resnick, M.J., Koyama, T., Fan, K.H., et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 368 (2013), 436–445.
54. Mossanen, M., Macleod, L.C., Chu, A., et al. Comparative effectiveness of a patient centered pathology report for bladder cancer care. J Urol 196 (2016), 1383–1389.
55. Kulkarni, G.S., Hermanns, T., Wei, Y., et al. Propensity Score Analysis of Radical Cystectomy Versus Bladder-Sparing Trimodal Therapy in the Setting of a Multidisciplinary Bladder Cancer Clinic. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 35:20 (2017 Jul 10), 2299–2305, 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2327 Epub 2017 Apr 14.
56. Seisen, T., Sun, M., Lipsitz, S.R., et al. Comparative effectiveness of trimodal therapy versus radical cystectomy for localized muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol, 2017 Apr 12 pii: S0302-2838(17)30266-X. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.038. [Epub ahead of print].
57. Carter, H.B., Albertsen, P.C., Barry, M.J., et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol 190 (2013), 419–426.
58. Thompson, I., Thrasher, J.B., Aus, G., et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 177 (2007), 2106–2131.