Asking the right questions to get the right answers: using cognitive interviews to review the acceptability, comprehension and clinical meaningfulness of patient self-report adverse event items in oncology patients

References

• Mort D, Lansdown M, Smith N, et al. For better, for worse? A review of the care of patients who died within 30 days of receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy. In: Mort D, Lansdown M, Smith N, et al. editors. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD): London, UK, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. U.S. Department of Health and Human Sciences; National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• UKONS. Acute Oncology Initial Management Guidelines. Buckinghamshire, UK: UK Oncology Nursing Society. [Internet]. Available from: www.ukons.org (last accessed January 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Hay JL, Atkinson TM, Reeve BB, et al. Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Qual Life Res 2014;23:257?69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T, et al. Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National cancer institute common terminology criteria for adverse events: results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:903–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macquart-Moulin G, Viens P, Bouscary ML, et al. Discordance between physicians' estimations and breast cancer patients' self-assessment of side-effects of chemotherapy: an issue for quality of care. Br J Cancer 1997;76:1640–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, et al. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:714–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh J, Abhyankar P, McCluskey S, et al. How do doctors refer to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in oncology consultations? Qual Life Res 2013;22:939–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 2006;12:559–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basch E. The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. N Engl J Med 2010;362:865–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Health. Guidance on the routine collection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216651/dh_128447.pdf (last accessed January 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Basch E, Artz D, Dulko D, et al. Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3552–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Mitchell SA, et al. 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 Oncol 2015;1:1051–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziegler L, Harley C, Holch P, et al. Towards safer delivery and monitoring of cancer treatments. Electronic patient self-reporting of adverse-events: patient information and aDvice (eRAPID). Psycho-Oncol 2012;21:15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holch P, Bamforth L, Warrington L, et al. Electronic patient self-reporting of adverse-events: patient information and aDvice (eRAPID): Development of a flexible electronic reporting platform and algorithms for severity dependent alerts. Psycho-Oncol 2012;21:15.
   Google Scholar
• Harley C, Takeuchi E, Sheppard S, et al. The development of an automated system for patient-reported toxicity during chemotherapy. COMPASS Collaborative Annual Scientific Meeting. Edinburgh 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern cooperative oncology group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982;5:649–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1–eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value in Health 2011;14:967–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty PC, Willis GB. Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opin Quart 2007;71:287–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006;18:59–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortune-Greeley AK, Flynn KE, Jeffery DD, et al. Using cognitive interviews to evaluate items for measuring sexual functioning across cancer populations: improvements and remaining challenges. Qual Life Res 2009;18:1085–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad FG, Blair J. Sources of error in cognitive interviews. Public Opin Quart 2009;73:32–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knafl K, Deatrick JA, Gallo A, et al. Assessment of the psychometric properties of the family management measure. J Pediatr Psychol 2011;36:494–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office of National Statistics: Official Labour Market Statistics for Yorkshire and the Humber. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/KS501UK/view/2013265923?cols=measures (last accessed 2nd June 2016).
   Google Scholar