Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29731612›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

Developing and piloting an instrument to prioritize the worries of patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

John Fp Bridges, Allison H Oakes, Crystal A Reinhart, Ernest Voyard, Bernadette O'Donoghue

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05061095 (Understanding What Matters Most to Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05061095 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Understanding What Matters Most to Patients: Establishing the Validity of a Best-Worst Scaling Survey

TypeobservationalSponsorUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterRan2022 to 2023Enrolled51ConditionsHematologic NeoplasmsArmsAssessment Surveys, Qualitative Interviews
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

John Fp BridgesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Allison H OakesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Crystal A ReinhartCenter for Prevention Research and Development, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.
Ernest VoyardThe Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Rye Brook, NY, USA.
Bernadette O'DonoghueThe Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Rye Brook, NY, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USLeukemia and Lymphoma Society · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · US

Funding

TRAINING IN HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCHT32HS000029 · AHRQ · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DY, SYDNEY MORSS · 1987 to 2024
$8.3M
AHRQ HHS T32 HS000029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a rapidly progressing blood cancer for which new treatments are needed. We sought to promote patient-focused drug development (PFDD) for AML by developing and piloting an instrument to prioritize the worries of patients with AML. PATIENTS AND

methodsAn innovative community-centered approach was used to engage expert and community stakeholders in the development, pretesting, pilot testing, and dissemination of a novel best-worst scaling instrument. Patient worries were identified through individual interviews (n=15) and group calls. The instrument was developed through rigorous pretesting (n=13) and then piloted among patients and caregivers engaged in this study (n=25). Priorities were assessed using best-worst scores (spanning from +1 to -1) representing the relative number of times that items were endorsed as the most and the least worrying. All findings were presented at a PFDD meeting at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that was attended by >80 stakeholders.

resultsThe final instrument included 13 worries spanning issues such as decision making, treatment delivery, physical impacts, and psychosocial effects. Patients and caregivers most prioritized worries about dying from their disease (best minus worst [BW] score=0.73), long-term side effects (BW=0.28), and time in hospital (BW=0.25).

conclusionCommunity-centered approaches are valuable in designing and executing PFDD meetings and associated quantitative surveys to document the experience of patients. Expert and community stakeholders welcomed the opportunity to share their experiences with the FDA and strongly endorsed implementing this survey nationally.

Indexed as

acute myeloid leukemiabest–worst scalingcommunity engagementpatient-focused drug developmentstated-preference

Identifiers

PMID29731612
PMCPMC5927351
OpenAlexW2799832305

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.