Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33544421›Full record

ArticlePsycho-oncology2021

Prioritizing the worries of AML patients: Quantifying patient experience using best-worst scaling.

Daniel R Richardson, Allison H Oakes, Norah L Crossnohere, Gary Rathsmill, Crystal Reinhart, Bernadette O'Donoghue, John F P Bridges

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psycho-oncology, 2021. 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 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Experiences of treatment decision-making among older newly diagnosed adults with acute myeloid leukemia: a qualitative descriptive study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Daniel R RichardsonUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9310-5773
Allison H OakesCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Norah L CrossnohereDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Gary RathsmillLeukemia & Lymphoma Society, White Plains, New York, USA.
Crystal ReinhartCenter for Prevention Research and Development, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA.
Bernadette O'DonoghueLeukemia & Lymphoma Society, White Plains, New York, USA.
John F P BridgesDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Funding

UNC-CH TRAINING PROGRAM IN HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCHT32HS000032 · AHRQ · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HOLMES, GEORGE M · 1989 to 2024
$8.2M
AHRQ HHS T32 HS000032NCI NIH HHS L30 CA264755
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextAlthough patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) experience significant toxicities and poor outcomes, few studies have quantified patients' experience.

methodsA community-centered approach was used to develop an AML-specific best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument involving 13 items in four domains (psychological, physical, decision-making, and treatment delivery) to quantify patient worry. A survey of patients and caregivers was conducted using the instrument. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression.

resultsThe survey was completed by 832 patients and 237 caregivers. Patients were predominantly white (88%), married/partnered (72%), and in remission (95%). The median age was 55 years (range: 19-87). Median time since diagnosis was 8 years (range: 1-40). Patients worried most about "the possibility of dying from AML" (BWS score = 15.5, confidence interval [CI] [14.2-16.7]) and "long-term side effects of treatments" (14.0, CI [12.9-15.2]). Patients found these items more than twice as worrisome as all items within the domains of care delivery and decision-making. Patients were least worried about "communicating openly with doctors" (2.50, CI [1.97-3.04]) and "having access to the best medical care" (3.90, CI [3.28-4.61]). Caregiver reports were highly correlated to patients' (Spearman's ρ = 0.89) though noted significantly more worry about the possibility of dying and spending time in the hospital.

conclusionThis large convenience sample demonstrates that AML patients have two principal worries: dying from their disease and suffering long-term side effects from treatment. To better foster patient-centered care, therapeutic decision-making and drug development should reflect the importance of both potential outcomes. Further work should explore interventions to address these worries.

Indexed as

CaregiversLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteAnxietyHumansMiddle AgedPatient Outcome AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesAcuteAnxietyCaregivers/psychologyDecision MakingDrug Development/*methodsLeukemiaLogistic ModelsMyeloidPatient-Centered CarePatient PreferencePsycho-oncologyRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID33544421
PMCPMC10246445

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.