Browsing by Author "Bartlett, Susan J"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review
    (Adis, Springer, Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2021-12-20) Thomas, Megan; Marshall, Deborah A; Choudhary, Daksh; Bartlett, Susan J; Sanchez, Adalberto Loyola; Hazlewood, Glen S
    Background and Objective: Patients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, which can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used to design clinical trials. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify primary research studies involving any health condition, that used quantitative preference elicitation methods, including direct utility-based approaches, and stated preference studies, to value heath trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews, and a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010-present. We extracted study characteristics and the application of preference elicitation methods to clinical trial design according to the SPIRIT checklist from primary studies and summarized the findings descriptively. Results: We identified 18 eligible studies. The included studies applied patient preferences to 5 areas of clinical trial design: intervention selection (n=1), designing N-of-1 trials (n=1), outcome selection and weighting composite and ordinal outcomes (n=12), sample size calculations (n=2), and recruitment (n=2). Using preference elicitation methods led to different decisions being made, such as using preference-weighted composite outcomes instead of equally weighted composite outcomes. Conclusion: Preference elicitation methods are infrequently used to design clinical trials but may lead to changes throughout the trial which could impact the evidence generated. Future work should be done to consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Patient and Rheumatologist Perspectives on Tapering DMARDs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Qualitative Study
    (British Society for Rheumatology, Oxford University Press [University Publisher, 2021-04-20) Hazlewood, Glen S; Loyola-Sanchez, Adalberto; Bykerk, Vivian; Hull, Pauline M; Marshall, Deborah; Pham, Tram; Barber, Claire E H; Barnabe, Cheryl; Sirois, Alexandra; Pope, Janet; Schieir, Orit; Richards, Dawn; Proulx, Laurie; Bartlett, Susan J
    Objectives: To understand the perspectives of patients and rheumatologists for tapering DMARDs in RA. Methods: Using semi-structured interview guides, we conducted individual interviews and focus groups with RA patients and rheumatologists, which were audiotaped and transcribed. We conducted a pragmatic thematic analysis to identify major themes, comparing and contrasting different views on DMARD tapering between patients and rheumatologists. Results: We recruited 28 adult patients with RA (64% women; disease duration 1-54 years) and 23 rheumatologists (52% women). Attitudes across both groups towards tapering DMARDs were ambivalent, ranging from wary to enthusiastic. Both groups expressed concerns, particularly the inability to ‘recapture’ the same level of disease control, while also acknowledging potential positive outcomes such as reduced drug harms. Patient tapering perspectives (whether to and when) changed over time and commonly included non-biologic DMARDs. Patient preferences were influenced by lived experiences, side effects, previous tapering experiences, disease trajectory, remission duration, and current life roles. Rheumatologists’ perspectives varied on timing and patient profile to initiate tapering, and were informed by both data and clinical experience. Patients expressed interest in shared decision making (SDM) and close monitoring during tapering, with ready access to their healthcare team if problems arose. Rheumatologists were generally open to tapering (not stopping), though sometimes only when requested by their patients. Conclusion: The perspectives of patients and rheumatologists on tapering DMARDs in RA vary and evolve over time. Rheumatologists should periodically discuss DMARD tapering with patients as part of SDM, and ensure monitoring and flare management plans are in place.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Selecting, implementing and evaluating patient-reported outcome measures for routine clinical use in cancer: the Cancer Care Ontario approach
    (2020-11-26) Montgomery, Nicole; Howell, Doris; Ismail, Zahra; Bartlett, Susan J; Brundage, Michael; Bryant-Lukosius, Denise; Krzyzanowska, Monika; Moody, Lesley; Snyder, Claire; Barbera, Lisa
    Abstract Background The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in routine clinical care can help ensure symptoms are identified, acknowledged and addressed. In 2007, the provincial cancer agency, Cancer Care Ontario, began to implement routine symptom screening with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) for ambulatory cancer patients. Having had a decade of experience with ESAS, the program developed a strategic interest in implementing new and/or additional measures. This article describes the development of a streamlined PROM selection and implementation evaluation process with core considerations. Methods Development of the PROM selection and implementation evaluation process involved analysis of quantitative and qualitative data as well as consensus building through a multi-stakeholder workshop. Core PROM selection considerations were developed through a literature scan, review and refinement by a panel of methodological experts and patient advisors, and testing via a test case. Core PROM implementation evaluation considerations were developed through analysis of PROM evaluation frameworks, and review and refinement by a committee of provincial implementation leads. Results Core PROM selection considerations were identified under three overarching themes: symptom coverage, usability and psychometric properties. The symptom coverage category assesses each PROM to determine how well the PROM items address the most prevalent and burdensome symptoms in the target patient population. The usability category aims to assess each measure on characteristics key to successful implementation in the clinical setting. The psychometric properties category assesses each PROM to ensure the data collected is credible, meaningful and interpretable. A scoring system was developed to rate PROM performance by assigning a grade of “weak”, “average” or “good” for each category. The process results in a summary matrix which illustrates the overall assessment of each PROM. Implementation evaluation considerations were identified under three overarching concepts: acceptability, outcomes, and sustainability. A consensus building exercise resulted in the further identification of patient, provider, and clinic specific indicators for each consideration. Conclusion To address the need for a systematic, evidence-based approach to selection, implementation and evaluation of PROMs in the clinical setting, Cancer Care Ontario defined a process with embedded core considerations to facilitate decision-making and encourage standardization.