Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 535–546 | Cite as

Evaluation of pedometry as a patient-centered outcome in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT): a comparison of pedometry and patient reports of symptoms, health, and quality of life

  • Antonia V. Bennett
  • Bryce B. Reeve
  • Ethan M. Basch
  • Sandra A. Mitchell
  • Mathew Meeneghan
  • Claudio L. Battaglini
  • Abbie E. Smith-Ryan
  • Brett Phillips
  • Thomas C. Shea
  • William A. Wood
Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only)

Abstract

Aims

We evaluated pedometry as a novel patient-centered outcome because it enables passive continuous assessment of activity and may provide information about the consequences of symptomatic toxicity complementary to self-report.

Methods

Adult patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) wore pedometers and completed PRO assessments during transplant hospitalization (4 weeks) and 4 weeks post-discharge. Patient reports of symptomatic treatment toxicities (single items from PRO-CTCAE, http://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/pro-ctcae) and symptoms, physical health, mental health, and quality of life (PROMIS® Global-10, http://nih.promis.org), assessed weekly with 7-day recall on Likert scales, were compared individually with pedometry data, summarized as average daily steps per week, using linear mixed models.

Results

Thirty-two patients [mean age 55 (SD = 14), 63 % male, 84 % white, 56 % autologous, 43 % allogeneic] completed a mean 4.6 (SD = 1.5, range 1–8) evaluable assessments. Regression model coefficients (β) indicated within-person decrements in average daily steps were associated with increases in pain (β = −852; 852 fewer steps per unit increase in pain score, p < 0.001), fatigue (β = −886, p < 0.001), vomiting (β = −518, p < 0.01), shaking/chills (β = −587, p < 0.01), diarrhea (β = −719, p < 0.001), shortness of breath (β = −1018, p < 0.05), reduction in carrying out social activities (β = 705, p < 0.01) or physical activities (β = 618, p < 0.01), and global physical health (β = 101, p < 0.001), but not global mental health or quality of life.

Conclusions

In this small sample of HCT recipients, more severe symptoms, impaired physical health, and restrictions in the performance of usual daily activities were associated with statistically significant decrements in objectively measured daily steps. Pedometry may be a valuable outcome measure and validation anchor in clinical research.

Keywords

PRO-CTCAE PROMIS Global-10 Fitbit Pedometry Hematopoietic cell transplant Oncology Validation 

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by the University of North Carolina Cancer Research Fund.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Brundage, M., Blazeby, J., Revicki, D., Bass, B., de Vet, H., Duffy, H., et al. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Quality of Life Research, 22(6), 1161–1175. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0252-1.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeline claims. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.
  3. 3.
    Aaronson, N., Alonso, J., Burnam, A., Lohr, K. N., Patrick, D. L., Perrin, E., et al. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Medicines Agency. (2005). Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for use of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/emea-hrql-guidance.pdf.
  5. 5.
    Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., Elliott, T. E., Greenhalgh, J., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research, 21(8), 1305–1314. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernhard, J., Cella, D. F., Coates, A. S., Fallowfield, L., Ganz, P. A., Moinpour, C. M., et al. (1998). Missing quality of life data in cancer clinical trials: Serious problems and challenges. Statistics in Medicine, 17(5–7), 517–532.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matza, L. S., Patrick, D. L., Riley, A. W., Alexander, J. J., Rajmil, L., Pleil, A. M., et al. (2013). Pediatric patient-reported outcome instruments for research to support medical product labeling: Report of the ISPOR PRO good research practices for the assessment of children and adolescents task force. Value Health, 16(4), 461–479. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Clinical outcome assessment: Glossary of terms. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugDevelopmentToolsQualificationProgram/ucm370262.htm.
  9. 9.
    Wood, W. A., Bennett, A. V., & Basch, E. (2014). Emerging uses of patient generated health data in clinical research. Molecular Oncology. doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.08.006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wallengren, O., Lundholm, K., & Bosaeus, I. (2013). Diagnostic criteria of cancer cachexia: Relation to quality of life, exercise capacity and survival in unselected palliative care patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 21(6), 1569–1577. doi: 10.1007/s00520-012-1697-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones, L. W., Hornsby, W. E., Goetzinger, A., Forbes, L. M., Sherrard, E. L., Quist, M., et al. (2012). Prognostic significance of functional capacity and exercise behavior in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer, 76(2), 248–252. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.10.009.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferriolli, E., Skipworth, R. J., Hendry, P., Scott, A., Stensteth, J., Dahele, M., et al. (2012). Physical activity monitoring: A responsive and meaningful patient-centered outcome for surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy? Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 43(6), 1025–1035. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.06.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Appelbaum, F. R., & Thomas, E. D. (2009). Thomas’ hematopoietic cell transplantation: Stem cell transplantation (4th ed.). Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andrykowski, M. A., Bishop, M. M., Hahn, E. A., Cella, D. F., Beaumont, J. L., Brady, M. J., et al. (2005). Long-term health-related quality of life, growth, and spiritual well-being after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(3), 599–608. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wood, W. A., Phillips, B., Smith-Ryan, A. E., Wilson, D., Deal, A. M., Bailey, C., Meeneghan, M., Reeve, B. B., Basch, E., Bennett, A. V., Shea, T. C., Battaglini, C. L. (under review). Evaluation of cardiorespiratory performance after interval exercise training (IET) prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adam Noah, J., Spierer, D. K., Gu, J., & Bronner, S. (2013). Comparison of steps and energy expenditure assessment in adults of Fitbit Tracker and Ultra to the Actical and indirect calorimetry. Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, 37(7), 456–462. doi: 10.3109/03091902.2013.831135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fulk, G. D., Combs, S. A., Danks, K. A., Nirider, C. D., Raja, B., & Reisman, D. S. (2014). Accuracy of 2 activity monitors in detecting steps in people with stroke and traumatic brain injury. Physical Therapy, 94(2), 222–229. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, J. M., Kim, Y., & Welk, G. J. (2014). Validity of consumer-based physical activity monitors. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 46(9), 1840–1848. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hay, J. L., Atkinson, T. M., Reeve, B. B., Mitchell, S. A., Mendoza, T. R., Willis, G., et al. (2014). Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 257–269. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0470-1.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dueck, A. C., Mendoza, T. R., Mitchell, S. A., Reeve, B. B., Castro, K. M., Rogak, L. J., et al. (2015). Validity and reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncology. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2639.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 873–880. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Apple iOS 8 Health. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from https://www.apple.com/ios/whats-new/health/.
  24. 24.
    Vignet Corporation. Mobile solutions for population health. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.vignetcorp.com/.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonia V. Bennett
    • 1
    • 5
  • Bryce B. Reeve
    • 1
    • 5
  • Ethan M. Basch
    • 2
    • 5
  • Sandra A. Mitchell
    • 3
  • Mathew Meeneghan
    • 2
    • 5
  • Claudio L. Battaglini
    • 4
    • 5
  • Abbie E. Smith-Ryan
    • 4
  • Brett Phillips
    • 5
  • Thomas C. Shea
    • 2
    • 5
  • William A. Wood
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and ManagementUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Outcomes Research BranchNational Cancer InstituteRockvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Exercise and Sports ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  5. 5.Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations