Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Common methods of determining meaningful change in clinical practice: implications for precision patient-reported outcomes

  • Special Section: Methodologies for Meaningful Change
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical practice for several purposes, including to monitor whether a treatment is working or whether a patient is experiencing adverse events from treatment. This study surveyed oncology providers (OP) and mental health providers (MHP) to determine how clinicians from different disciplines determine individual-level meaningful change on PROs. Understanding how clinicians determine change on PROs could help inform methods for individualizing meaningful change definitions, an approach we have dubbed “Precision PROs”.

Methods

Three hundred and forty-seven providers utilizing PROs completed an online survey about PRO use to monitor patients in clinical practice. A question on methods used to determine individual-level meaningful change on PROs was developed with input from clinicians. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether specific methods were associated with clinician characteristics.

Results

The most commonly reported method was comparing the previous score to the current score (65%). Other methods included examining the numerical scores without a visual aid (59%), considering other factors affecting scores (42%), comparing scores to norms (31%) and using a graph of scores (29%). Provider age was negatively associated with odds of using a graph (OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.91, 1.0) but no other method. Provider gender, hours per week in clinical practice and years in practice were not associated with odds of using a specific method.

Conclusions

Most providers determined individual-level meaningful change without a visual aid and used only the previous score and current score, the minimum number (2 scores) to determine change. Consistent with current practice, future research on methods of determining within-individual meaningful change for clinical use should focus on methods requiring two rather than three or more scores. When attempting to personalize within-individual change definitions (Precision PROs), methods examining a baseline and single follow-up may be most useful for clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

De-identified data is available upon reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Basch E., Deal A. M., Kris M. G., Scher H. I., Hudis C. A., Sabbatini P., et al. (2016) Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34(6), 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830. Accessed 6 Dec 2017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Basch E., Deal A. M., Dueck A. C., Scher H. I., Kris M.,G, Hudis C, et al. (2017) Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA, 318(2), 197–198. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7156. Accessed 6 Dec 2017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Denis F., Lethrosne C., Pourel N., Molinier O., Pointreau Y., Domont J., et al. (2017) Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 109(9). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx029. Accessed 11 Oct 2018.

  4. Denis F., Yossi S., Septans A. L., Charron A., Voog E., Dupuis O., et al. (2015) Improving survival in patients treated for a lung cancer using self-evaluated symptoms reported through a web application. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 40(5), 464–469. Retrieved 27 March, 2015 from https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000189. Accessed 27 Mar 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Scott, K., & Lewis, C. C. (2015). Using measurement-based care to enhance any treatment. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 22(1), 49–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Uryniak, T., Chan, I. S. F., Fedorov, V. V., Jiang, Q., Oppenheimer, L., Snapinn, S. M., Teng, C. H., & Zhang, J. (2011). Responder analyses-A PhRMA position paper. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 3(3), 476–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pe, M., Dorme, L., Coens, C., Basch, E., Calvert, M., Campbell, A., Cleeland, C., Cocks, K., Collette, L., Dirven, L., Dueck, A. C., Devlin, N., Flechtner, H. H., Gotay, C., Griebsch, I., Groenvold, M., King, M., Koller, M., Malone, D. C., Martinelli, F., Mitchell, S. A., Musoro, J. Z., Oliver, K., Piault-Louis, E., Piccart, M., Pimentel, F. L., Quinten, C., Reijneveld, J. C., Sloan, J., Velikova, G., & Bottomley, A. (2018). Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncology, 19(9), e459–69. Retrieved 8 September, 2018 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30191850

  8. Bottomley, A., Pe, M., Sloan, J., Basch, E., Bonnetain, F., Calvert, M., Campbell, A., Cleeland, C., Cocks, K., Collette, L., Dueck, A. C., Devlin, N., Flechtner, H. H., Gotay, C., Greimel, E., Griebsch, I., Groenvold, M., Hamel, J. F., King, M., Kluetz, P. G., Koller, M., Malone, D. C., Martinelli, F., Mitchell, S. A., Moinpour, C. M., Musoro, J. Z., O'Connor, D., Oliver, K., Piault-Louis, E., Piccart, M., Pimentel, F. L., Quinten, C., Reijneveld, J. C., Schurmann, C., Smith, A. W., Soltys, K. M., Sridhara, R., Taphoorn, M. J. B., Velikova, G., & Coens, C. (2018). Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials. Clinical Trials, 15(6), 624–630. Retrieved 25 August, 2018 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30141714

  9. Coens, C., Pe, M., Dueck, A. C., Sloan, J., Basch, E., Calvert, M., Campbell, A., Cleeland, C., Cocks, K., Collette, L., Devlin, N., Dorme, L., Flechtner, H. H., Gotay, C., Griebsch, I., Groenvold, M., King, M., Kluetz, P. G., Koller, M., Malone, D. C., Martinelli, F., Mitchell, S. A., Musoro, J. Z., O'Connor, D., Oliver, K., Piault-Louis, E., Piccart, M., Quinten, C., Reijneveld, J. C., Schurmann, C., Smith, A. W., Soltys, K. M., Taphoorn, M. J. B., Velikova, G., & Bottomley, A. (2020). International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium. Lancet Oncology, 21(2), e83–96. Retrieved 3 February, 2020 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32007209

  10. Borckardt J. J., Nash M. R., Murphy M. D., Moore M., Shaw D., O’Neil P. (2008) Clinical practice as natural laboratory for psychotherapy research: a guide to case-based time-series analysis. American Psychologist [Internet] 63(2):77–95. Retrieved 21 February, 2008 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284277

  11. Dobson K.S., Hollon S. D., Dimidjian S., Schmaling K. B., Kohlenberg R. J., Gallop R. J. et al. (2008) Randomized trial of behavioral activation, cognitive therapy, and antidepressant medication in the prevention of relapse and recurrence in major depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology [Internet] 76(3):468–77. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18540740. Accessed 9 Aug 2018.

  12. Uher R., Muthén B., Souery D., Mors O., Jaracz J., Placentino A. et al. (2010) Trajectories of change in depression severity during treatment with antidepressants. Psychological Medicine [Internet] 40(8):1367–77. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19863842. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.

  13. Hui D., Park M., Shamieh O., Paiva C. E., Perez-Cruz P. E., Muckaden M. A., et al. (2017) Personalized symptom goals and response in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer [Internet] 122(11):1774–81. Retrieved 13 March, 2016 from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26970366. Accessed 11 Feb 2017.

  14. Zylla D., Larson A., Chuy G., Illig L., Peck A., Van Peursem S. et al. (2017) Establishment of personalized pain goals in oncology patients to improve care and decrease costs. Journal of Oncology Practice [Internet] 13(3):e266–72. Retrieved 4 January, 2017 from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28045611

  15. Arthur, J., Tanco, K., Park, M., Haider, A., Maligi, C., Dalal, S., Naqvi, S. M. A., Liu, D., & Bruera, E. (2018). Personalized pain goal as an outcome measure in routine cancer pain assessment. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 56(1), 80–87. Retrieved 13 March, 2018 from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29526610

  16. Childs, J. D., Piva, S. R., & Fritz, J. M. (2005) Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine, 30(11), 1331–1334. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brouwer D., Meijer R. R., Zevalkink J. (2013) Measuring individual significant change on the Beck Depression Inventory-II through IRT-based statistics. Psychotherapy Research [Internet] 23(5):489–501. Retrieved 11 May, 2015 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23659179

  18. Lavallee, D. C., Chenok, K. E., Love, R. M., Petersen, C., Holve, E., Segal, C. D., & Franklin, P. D. (2016). Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Affairs, 35(4), 575–582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Antunes, B., Harding, R., & Higginson, I. J. (2014). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: A systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliative Medicine, 28(2), 158–175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones, S. M. W., Du, Y., Bell-Brown, A., Bolt, K., & Unger, J. M. (2020). Feasibility and validity of asking patients to define individual levels of meaningful change on patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews, 7(3), 239.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. chemoWave Your Health Companion Through Cancer [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Feb 11]. https://chemowave.com/

  22. Bringmann, L. F., van der Veen, D. C., Wichers, M., Riese, H., & Stulp, G. (2021). ESMvis: a tool for visualizing individual experience sampling method (ESM) data. Quality of Life Research, 30(11), 3179–3188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Donaldson G. (2008) Patient-reported outcomes and the mandate of measurement. Quality of Life Research [Internet] 17(10):1303–13. Retrieved 25 December, 2008 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18953670

  24. McGregor, B. A., Vidal, G. A., Shah, S. A., Mitchell, J. D., & Hendifar, A. E. (2020). Remote oncology care: Review of current technology and future directions. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.10156

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Howell, D., Molloy, S., Wilkinson, K., Green, E., Orchard, K., Wang, K., & Liberty, J. (2015). Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: A scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Annals of Oncology, 26, 1846–1858.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jones, S. M. W., Gaffney, A., & Unger, J. M. (2021). Using patient-reported outcomes in measurement-based care: Perceived barriers and benefits in oncologists and mental health providers. Journal of Public Health (Bangkok). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-021-01580-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Institutional funding was used for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA

    Salene M. W. Jones, Aliana Gaffney & Joseph M. Unger

Authors
  1. Salene M. W. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aliana Gaffney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph M. Unger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salene M. W. Jones.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

The institutional review board approved all study procedures before the study began.

Consent to participate

All participants provided informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jones, S.M.W., Gaffney, A. & Unger, J.M. Common methods of determining meaningful change in clinical practice: implications for precision patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res 32, 1231–1238 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03246-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03246-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation