2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Using a personalized measure (Patient Generated Index (PGI)) to identify what matters to people with cancer

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?

          Interest has increased in recent years in incorporating health status measures into clinical practice for use at the individual-patient level. We propose six measurement standards for individual-patient applications: (1) practical features, (2) breadth of health measured, (3) depth of health measured, (4) precision for cross-sectional assessment, (5) precision for longitudinal monitoring and (6) validity. We evaluate five health status surveys (Functional Status Questionnaire, Dartmouth COOP Poster Charts, Nottingham Health Profile, Duke Health Profile, and SF-36 Health Survey) that have been proposed for use in clinical practice. We conducted an analytical literature review to evaluate the six measurement standards for individual-patient applications across the five surveys. The most problematic feature of the five surveys was their lack of precision for individual-patient applications. Across all scales, reliability standards for individual assessment and monitoring were not satisfied, and the 95% CIs were very wide. There was little evidence of the validity of the five surveys for screening, diagnosing, or monitoring individual patients. The health status surveys examined in this paper may not be suitable for monitoring the health and treatment status of individual patients. Clinical usefulness of existing measures might be demonstrated as clinical experience is broadened. At this time, however, it seems that new instruments, or adaptation of existing measures and scaling methods, are needed for individual-patient assessment and monitoring.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures.

            To assess the growth of quality of life measures and to examine the availability of measures across specialties. Systematic searches of electronic databases to identify developmental and evaluative work relating to health outcome measures assessed by patients. Types of measures: disease or population specific, dimension specific, generic, individualised, and utility. Specialties in which measures have been developed and evaluated. 3921 reports that described the development and evaluation of patient assessed measures met the inclusion criteria. Of those that were classifiable, 1819 (46%) were disease or population specific, 865 (22%) were generic, 690 (18%) were dimension specific, 409 (10%) were utility, and 62 (1%) were individualised measures. During 1990-9 the number of new reports of development and evaluation rose from 144 to 650 per year. Reports of disease specific measures rose exponentially. Over 30% of evaluations were in cancer, rheumatology and musculoskeletal disorders, and older people's health. The generic measures--SF-36, sickness impact profile, and Nottingham health profile--accounted for 612 (16%) reports. In some specialties there are numerous measures of quality of life and little standardisation. Primary research through the concurrent evaluation of measures and secondary research through structured reviews of measures are prerequisites for standardisation. Recommendations for the selection of patient assessed measures of health outcome are needed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pain in Cancer Survivors

              Pain is a common problem in cancer survivors, especially in the first few years after treatment. In the longer term, approximately 5% to 10% of survivors have chronic severe pain that interferes with functioning. The prevalence is much higher in certain subpopulations, such as breast cancer survivors. All cancer treatment modalities have the potential to cause pain. Currently, the approach to managing pain in cancer survivors is similar to that for chronic cancer-related pain, pharmacotherapy being the principal treatment modality. Although it may be appropriate to continue strong opioids in survivors with moderate to severe pain, most pain problems in cancer survivors will not require them. Moreover, because more than 40% of cancer survivors now live longer than 10 years, there is growing concern about the long-term adverse effects of opioids and the risks of misuse, abuse, and overdose in the nonpatient population. As with chronic nonmalignant pain, multimodal interventions that incorporate nonpharmacologic therapies should be part of the treatment strategy for pain in cancer survivors, prescribed with the aim of restoring functionality, not just providing comfort. For patients with complex pain issues, multidisciplinary programs should be used, if available. New or worsening pain in a cancer survivor must be evaluated to determine whether the cause is recurrent disease or a second malignancy. This article focuses on patients with a history of cancer who are beyond the acute diagnosis and treatment phase and on common treatment-related pain etiologies. The benefits and harms of the various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options for pain management in this setting are reviewed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Supportive Care in Cancer
                Support Care Cancer
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0941-4355
                1433-7339
                January 2016
                June 23 2015
                January 2016
                : 24
                : 1
                : 437-445
                Article
                10.1007/s00520-015-2821-7
                6c3e9a88-68f2-43f1-a4e5-02b6ba6e9427
                © 2016

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article