IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i13p6293-d1186560.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Liver and Gastrointestinal Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Carolin Winkelmann

    (Chair in Empirical Economics, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany
    Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany)

  • Anna Mezentseva

    (Chair in Empirical Economics, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany)

  • Bodo Vogt

    (Chair in Empirical Economics, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany
    Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany
    Chair in Health Economics, Institute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany)

  • Thomas Neumann

    (Chair in Empirical Economics, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany
    Research Campus STIMULATE, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Otto-Hahn-Straße 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany
    Chair in Health Services Research, Department of Digital Health Sciences and Biomedicine, School of Life Sciences, University of Siegen, Am Eichenhang 50, 57076 Siegen, Germany
    University Department of Neurology, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany)

Abstract

Objective: For many years, outcomes such as mortality and morbidity were the standard for evaluating oncological treatment effectiveness. With the introduction of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the focus shifted from a mere extension of a patient’s life or release from disease to the improvement of a multilayered concept of health, decisively affecting life satisfaction. In this study, we deal with the topic of PROMs in liver and gastrointestinal randomized controlled trials. Results: The final database included 43 papers reporting results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for liver or gastrointestinal cancer interventions where one of the primary or secondary outcomes was a health-related quality of life measure. The most often used PROM was the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) for both liver cancer and gastrointestinal cancer (in 62% of gastrointestinal cancer studies and 57% of liver cancer studies). For the gastrointestinal cancer group, the QLQ-STO22, a cancer-specific extension of the QLQ-C30, was the second most commonly used PROM. In liver cancer, the generic PROM Short Form 36 and the EORTC QLQ-HCC18, a cancer-specific extension of the QLQ-C30, were the second most commonly used PROMs. Conclusion: We found that RCTs often do not include comprehensive quality-of-life measures. When quality of life is part of an RCT, it is often only a secondary outcome. For a holistic view of the patient, a stronger integration and weighting of patient-reported outcomes in RCTs would be desirable.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolin Winkelmann & Anna Mezentseva & Bodo Vogt & Thomas Neumann, 2023. "Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Liver and Gastrointestinal Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(13), pages 1-13, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:13:p:6293-:d:1186560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/13/6293/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/13/6293/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Joy & Emily Little & Nisa Maruthur & Tanjala Purnell & John Bridges, 2013. "Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(10), pages 877-892, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lea de Jong & Jan Zeidler & Kathrin Damm, 2022. "A systematic review to identify the use of stated preference research in the field of older adult care," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1005-1056, December.
    2. Ellen M. Janssen & Jodi B. Segal & John F. P. Bridges, 2016. "A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 465-479, October.
    3. Tinelli, Michela & Petrou, Panagiotis & Samoutis, George & Traynor, Vivie & Olympios, George & McGuire, Alistair, 2017. "Implementing shared-decision-making for diabetes care across country settings: What really matters to people?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 786-792.
    4. Souraya Sidani & Dana R. Epstein & Mary Fox & Joyal Miranda, 2018. "Psychometric Properties of the Treatment Perception and Preferences Measure," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 27(6), pages 743-761, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:13:p:6293-:d:1186560. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.