Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A knowledge translation challenge: clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

QOL:

Quality of life

HRQL:

Health-related quality of life

RCT:

Randomized clinical trial

KT:

Knowledge translation

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Till, J. E., Osoba, D., Pater, J. L., & Young, J. R. (1994). Research on health-related quality of life: Dissemination into practical applications. Quality of Life Research, 3(4), 279–283.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lipscomb, J., Reeve, B. B., Clauser, S. B., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials: Taking stock, moving forward. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(32), 5133–5140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

  8. Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Taylor, K., Macdonald, K., & DePetrillo, A. D. (1997). A preliminary survey of oncologists’ perceptions of quality of life information. Psycho-Oncology, 6(2), 107–113.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R., DePetrillo, A. D., Comis, R., & Taylor, K. M. (2001). Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 1–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Joly, F., Vardy, J., Pintilie, M., & Tannock, I. F. (2007). Quality of life and/or symptom control in randomized clinical trials for patients with advanced cancer. Annals of Oncology, 18, 1935–1942.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee, C. W., & Chi, K. N. (2000). The standard of reporting of health-related quality of life in clinical cancer trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(5), 451–458.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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).

  14. 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.

  15. Logan, J., & Graham, I. D. (1998). Toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary model of health care research use. Science Communication, 20(2), 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

  19. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Guyatt, G., & Schunemann, H. (2007). How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Quality of Life Research, 16, 1097–1105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brundage, M., Feldman-Stewart, D., Leis, A., et al. (2005). Communicating quality of life information to cancer patients: A study of six presentation formats. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(28), 6949–6956.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tannock, I. F. (1992). Some problems related to the design and analysis of clinical trials. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 22, 881–885.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Andrea Bezjak, Dr. Joyce Nyhof-Young, Dr. Shayna Watson, Dr. Anna Wilkinson, and Dr. Deb Feldman-Stewart in discussions regarding the KT framework used in this study. This study was funded through the generous support of the Clare Nelson Bequest of the Kingston General Hospital.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Level 2, Queen’s Cancer Research Institute, 10 Stuart St., Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada

    Michael Brundage, Brenda Bass & Kimberley Foley

  2. Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada

    Michael Brundage

  3. Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

    Michael Brundage, Brenda Bass & Kimberley Foley

  4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ringash Jolie

  5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ringash Jolie

Authors
  1. Michael Brundage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brenda Bass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ringash Jolie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kimberley Foley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Brundage.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brundage, M., Bass, B., Jolie, R. et al. A knowledge translation challenge: clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Qual Life Res 20, 979–985 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9848-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9848-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation