Date: 29 Jan 2011
A knowledge translation challenge: clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Measurement and reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQL) data have evolved considerably over the past 10 years. Our goal was to identify the current barriers to, and enablers of, the effective translation of HRQL outcome data from randomized clinical trials by investigating physician attitudes, knowledge, and education needs.
We undertook a mixed qualitative and quantitative study of 33 oncologists’ attitudes and educational needs around the value, interpretation, and application of HRQL data from cancer clinical trials. The approach was designed to identify barriers and enablers relating to the characteristics of the knowledge itself, to the potential users of the knowledge, and to the environment in which the knowledge is used.
The majority of barriers and enablers identified were “second order”, i.e., related to the understandability and generalizability of the data, its presentation, its accessibility within the medical literature, and its relevance to specific patient populations.
Our results suggest knowledge translation (KT) of HRQL results would improve if the clinical trial HRQL data were easily accessible to clinicians, and presented in a comprehensible and clinically applicable format, which includes discussion of the relevance of the measurement domains and implications of the findings. We recommend that standards of clinical trial HRQL reporting be implemented in clinical journals.
Au, H.-J., Ringash, J., Brundage, M. D., Palmer, M., Richardson, H., & Meyer, R. M. (2010). Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: A review of the experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(2), 119–128.CrossRef
Osoba, D. (2005). The clinical value and meaning of health-related quality-of-life outcomes in oncology. In J. Lipscomb, C. C. Gotay, & C. Snyder (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in cancer (1st ed., pp. 386–405). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, C. E., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2002). An introduction to quality of life assessment in oncology: The value of measuring patient-reported outcomes. American Journal of Management Care, 8(18 Suppl), S550–S559.
Guyatt, G. H., Sackett, D. L., & Cook, D. J. (1993). Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270(21), 2598–2601.PubMedCrossRef
Lomas, J. (1997). Improving research dissemination and uptake in the health sector: beyond the sound of one hand clapping. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Report No.: Policy Commentary C97-1.
Bezjak, A., Taylor, K. M., Ng, P., Macdonald, K., & DePetrillo, A. D. (1998). Quality-of-life information and clinical practice: The oncologist’s perspective. Cancer Prevention & Control, 2(5), 230–235.
Brundage, M. D., Bezjak, A., Ringash, J., & Fleming, S. (2005). Patterns of reporting quality of life data in randomized clinical trials. ISOQOL, San Francisco (abstract).
Sackett, D. L., Haynes, R. B., & Tugwell, P. (Eds.) (1985). How to get the most from and give the most to continuing medical education. In Clinical epidemiology: A basic science for clinical medicine, 1st ed. (pp. 331–352). Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
Logan, J., & Graham, I. D. (1998). Toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary model of health care research use. Science Communication, 20(2), 227–246.CrossRef
Browman, G. P., Levine, M. N., Mohide, A., et al. (1995). The practice guidelines development cycle: A conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 13, 502–512.PubMed
Brundage, M., Osoba, D., Bezjak, A., Tu, D., Palmer, M., & Pater, J. (2007). “Lessons learned” in the assessment of health-related quality of life: Selected examples from the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32, 5078–5081.CrossRef
Osoba, D., Dancey, J., Zee, B., Myles, J.,& Pater, J. (1996). Health-related quality-of-life studies of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs (20), 107–111.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Michael, M., & Tannock, I. F. (1998). Measuring health-related quality of life in clinical trials that evaluate the role of chemotherapy in cancer treatment. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 158(13), 1727–1734.PubMed
- A knowledge translation challenge: clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials
Quality of Life Research
Volume 20, Issue 7 , pp 979-985
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Quality of life
- Patient-reported outcomes
- Knowledge translation
- Randomized clinical trials
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Level 2, Queen’s Cancer Research Institute, 10 Stuart St., Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada
- 2. Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada
- 3. Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
- 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
- 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada