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
  • [21] Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in melanoma clinical quality registries: a systematic review
    Blood, Zachary
    Anh Tran
    Caleo, Lauren
    Saw, Robyn
    Dieng, Mbathio
    Shackleton, Mark
    Soyer, H. Peter
    Arnold, Chris
    Mann, Graham J.
    Morton, Rachael L.
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (02):
  • [22] Psychometric evaluation of patient-reported experience measures: is it valid?
    Sizmur, Steve
    Graham, Chris
    Bos, Nanne
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2020, 32 (03) : 219 - 220
  • [23] Patient-reported outcome measures in skin cancer
    Black, N.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2013, 168 (06) : 1151 - 1151
  • [24] Evaluating the development, woman-centricity and psychometric properties of maternity patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs): A systematic review protocol
    Bull, Claudia
    Teede, Helena
    Carrandi, Lane
    Rigney, Azure
    Cusack, Sally
    Callander, Emily
    BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (02):
  • [25] Patient experience in systemic lupus erythematosus: Development of novel patient-reported symptom and patient-reported impact measures
    Mathias S.D.
    Berry P.
    De Vries J.
    Pascoe K.
    Colwell H.H.
    Chang D.J.
    Askanase A.D.
    Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2 (1)
  • [26] Evaluating Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Glaucoma
    Vinokurtseva, Anastasiya
    Quinn, Matthew P.
    Wai, Mandy
    Leung, Victoria
    Malvankar-Mehta, Monali
    Hutnik, Cindy M. L.
    OPHTHALMOLOGY GLAUCOMA, 2023, 6 (05): : 541 - 563
  • [27] Evaluating quality of patient-reported outcome measures in patients with hypospadias
    Bhatia, V. P.
    Hilliard, M. E.
    Austin, P. F.
    Mittal, A. G.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY, 2021, 17 (01) : 50 - 58
  • [28] Real time patient-reported outcome measures in patients with cancer: Early experience within an integrated health system
    Tam, Samantha
    Zatirka, Theresa
    Neslund-Dudas, Christine
    Su, Wan-Ting
    Cannella, Cara E.
    Grewal, Jeewanjot S.
    Mattour, Ahmad H.
    Tang, Amy
    Movsas, Benjamin
    Chang, Steven S. S.
    CANCER MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (07): : 8860 - 8870
  • [29] Viewing assessments of patient-reported heath status as conversations: Implications for developing and evaluating patient-reported outcome measures
    Kevin P. Weinfurt
    Quality of Life Research, 2019, 28 : 3395 - 3401
  • [30] Selecting and Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures to Assess Health System Performance
    Bull, Claudia
    Teede, Helena
    Watson, Diane
    Callander, Emily J.
    JAMA HEALTH FORUM, 2022, 3 (04):