Premium
Patient‐reported outcome measures suitable to assessment of patient navigation
Author(s) -
Fiscella Kevin,
Ransom Sean,
JeanPierre Pascal,
Cella David,
Stein Kevin,
Bauer Joseph E.,
CraneOkada Rebecca,
Gentry Sharon,
Canosa Rosalie,
Smith Tenbroeck,
Sellers Jean,
Jankowski Emilia,
Walsh Karyn
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/cncr.26260
Subject(s) - medicine , respondent , patient reported outcome , quality of life (healthcare) , competence (human resources) , construct validity , patient satisfaction , survivorship curve , psycinfo , medline , family medicine , nursing , psychology , cancer , social psychology , political science , law
BACKGROUND: Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are measures completed by patients to capture outcomes that are meaningful and valued by patients. To help standardize PRO measures in patient navigation research and program evaluation, the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Working Group (PROWG) was convened as part of the American Cancer Society's National Patient Navigator Leadership Summit. METHODS: The PROWG consisted of clinicians, researchers, and program managers from a variety of perspectives who developed a set of recommended PRO measures across the cancer continuum (ie, screening, diagnostic follow‐up, treatment, survivorship, end of life) as well as those useful for assessing family caregivers. Measures were recommended based on face validity, responsiveness to navigation, reliability, and construct validity in relevant populations. Other considerations included readability, existence of multiple language versions, the existence of norm groups, and respondent burden. RESULTS: The PROWG reached consensus on measures for use in the domains of treatment adherence; perceived barriers to care; satisfaction with cancer care; satisfaction with patient navigation services; working alliance with patient navigator; perceived knowledge/competence/self‐efficacy; functional assessment/symptom burden; global quality of life; specific quality‐of‐life symptoms (eg, depression, anxiety); and perceived cultural competency of the navigator. In domains where validated measures were found lacking, recommendations were made for areas of needed scale development. CONCLUSIONS: These measures should guide research and programmatic evaluation of patient navigation. Cancer 2011;117(15 suppl):3601–615. © 2011 American Cancer Society.