1 / 20

On the Trail of Improved Cancer Outcomes: An Outcomes Research Example

On the Trail of Improved Cancer Outcomes: An Outcomes Research Example. Arthur R. Williams, PhD, MA, MPA Director, Center for Health Outcomes and Health Services R esearch. Nurse. Health Outcomes Researcher. Researcher. Health Care System. HELP!!. Outcomes Researchers.

candice-hebert
Download Presentation

On the Trail of Improved Cancer Outcomes: An Outcomes Research Example

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On the Trail of Improved Cancer Outcomes: An Outcomes Research Example Arthur R. Williams, PhD, MA, MPA Director, Center for Health Outcomes and Health Services Research

  2. Nurse Health Outcomes Researcher Researcher Health Care System HELP!! Outcomes Researchers

  3. What is Outcomes Research? “Outcomes research seeks to understand the end results of particular health care practices and interventions. End results include effects that people experience and care about, such as change in the ability to function. … By linking the care people get to the outcomes they experience, outcomes research has become the key to developing better ways to monitor and improve the quality of care. “ -- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, March 2000 www.ahrq.gov

  4. Outcomes Research can be viewed as a subarea of Health Services Research. Where Health Services Research is focused “on how people get access to health care, how much care costs, and what happens to patients as a result of this care. The main goals of health services research are to identify the most effective ways to organize, manage, finance, and deliver high quality care; reduce medical errors; and improve patient safety. “ -- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, February 2002 www.ahrq.gov also AcademyHealth www.academyhealth.org

  5. A Health Services Research Paradigm circa 2003

  6. Health Services Research contains elements of evidence based medicine, clinical epidemiology, psychology, medical sociology, organizational behavior (understudied), quality and safety analyses (industrial engineering), advanced multivariate statistics, and, especially, health economics. Patient Shared Decision-Making

  7. TENDENCIES IN OUTCOMES RESEARCH • Research generally arises from a specific clinical issue or problem . • Use (often) of quasi-experimental designs. • Use (often) of administrative or existing data sets. • Use of complex statistical procedures, which may be consequence of 2 and 3 . • Use of measures of both outputs (and process) and outcomes. • Use of highly multi-disciplinary teams.

  8. Improving Cancer Outcomes Using the Therapy-Related Symptom Checklist (TRSC) for Adult Oncology Patients Tendency 6: MULITIDISCIPLINARY TEAM Arthur R. Williams, PhD, MA, MPA Phoebe D. Williams, PhD, RN, FAAN TRSC Research Team* *Team consisted of economist/statistician, nurse researcher, 6 oncology nurses, 3 physicians, computer analyst, biostatistician, nutritionist, and other clinical staff at a Cancer Center within a community hospital system in small town/rural Wisconsin.

  9. Initial Reason for Study of Symptoms Tendency 1: CLINCAL ISSUE (1984-1986) 3 Advanced Practice Nurses at the University of Florida believed under-documentation of patient symptoms was impeding symptom management and patient recovery. Researched and published : 1.8 symptoms per patient documented in medical records yet patients reported 11.0 symptoms on average of concern to them. Youngblood M, Williams PD, Eyles H, Waring J, Runyon S. (1994). A comparison of two methods of assessing cancer therapy-related symptoms. Cancer Nursing; 17(1): 37-44.

  10. FOLLOW-UP: Calibration, Testing, and Development of a 25-Item Therapy-Related Symptom Checklist (TRSC) for Adult Oncology Patients Many publications; Some summarized in Barry MJ, Dancey JE (2005). Instruments to measure the specific health impact of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy on cancer patients (pp.201-215). In: Lipscomb, J., Gotay CC, Snyder C (Eds.), Outcomes Assessment I n Cancer: Measures, Methods, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, London.

  11. Objective of the Study by the Wisconsin Team: To Determine in an Outpatient Setting If: Translational Research Documentation of patient reported symptoms, management of these symptoms, and HRQOL can be improved through use of the TRSC. H1: A treatment cohort using the TRSC at clinic visits will show a statistically significant positive increase in HRQOL-LASA compared to a treatment cohort receiving standard of care. H2: A treatment cohort using the TRSC during clinic visits will show a statistically significant larger number of symptoms documented and managed compared to a treatment cohort receiving standard of care.

  12. Quasi-Experimental Design of Study Tendency 2: QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Sequential non-equivalent cohort design: early cohort serves as study “control” for later “treatment” cohort. Ref: Happ MB, Sereika S, Garrett K, Tate J. Use of the quasi-experimental sequential cohort design in the study of patient–nurse effectiveness with assisted communication strategies (SPEACS). Contemporary Clinical Trials 2008 29:801-808. Statistical analysis using generalized estimating equations (GEE): additional strength through use of repeated measure panel.Ref:Twisk JWR. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis for Epidemiology: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2003. Tendency 4: COMPLEX STATISTICS

  13. Demographics of Study Subjects Of the 128 subjects on which data were collected 2 were excluded for having only one visit and 13 were not able to be staged for their cancer. Stage was considered a critical covariate in the two GEE. Exclusion of these subjects left 113 for the analysis in this paper with 696 observations. The mean number of observations per patient was 5.2. Final “Control” Group n=55 subjects; Final “Treatment” Group n=58 subjects. No statistically significant differences between groups on: Age: Gender; Marital Status; Education; Presence of Significant Other; Stage; Diagnoses; Radiation; Chemo; Both Radio-Chemo. Median Age = 61; Married: 79%; Education: 36% HS or Less; 47% HS+; 16% BS/BA+; Race: 96% Caucasian. Profile reflects populations in small town/rural Upper Midwest.

  14. Results of GEE Analysis of HRQOL-LASA on Covariates MAIN FINDING Response: HRQOL Corr: Exchangeable Variable Name Coefficient StErr p-value constant 16.7528 7.7564 0.031 Baseline QOL .7083 .0829 < 0.001 Treatment Group 3.3144 1.3152 0.012 . Education -.8092 .7233 0.263 Age .0090 .0673 0.893 Male -3.2381 1.5391 0.035 Significant Other .1893 1.5507 0.903 Stage .6205 .7723 0.422 Radio -2.6490 1.5413 0.086 Chemo -3.6356 2.3372 0.120 Days from Baseline -.0166 .0109 0.129 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #observations: 583 scale parameter: 62.3707 #iterations: 4 Estimate of common correlation 0.6095

  15. Results of GEE Analysis of Total Symptoms on Covariates Main Finding Response: Number of Symptoms Corr: Exchangeable Variable Name Coefficient StErr p-value constant 2.5747 2.2991 0.263 Treatment Group 3.7597 .5939 < 0.001 . Education -.1588 .2531 0.344 Age -.0310 .0328 0.893 Male -.7299 .6698 0.276 Significant Other .0226 .6699 0.973 Stage .7590 .3482 0.029 Radio .0767 .4155 0.853 Chemo 1.2776 .6814 0.061 Days from Baseline .0005 .0031 0.870 Days × Treatment Group -.0151 .0072 0.037 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #observations: 696 scale parameter: 13.5982 #iterations: 5 Estimate of common correlation 0.6977 Important “Process” Finding Tendency 6: MEASURES OF OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES

  16. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS Treatment group patients had a 7.2% higher population averaged covariate adjusted HRQOL than “control” patients, (3.3 more points on the HRQOL, P = .012.) 116% more covariate and non-covariate adjusted symptoms were documented and managed in the “treatment “group than in the “control” group, (6.14 symptoms versus 2.84, P < .0001). Despite low sensitivity to change, a 2.0 point mean difference improvement was found in Karnofsky scores in the “treatment “group versus the “control” group, (P < .01). The HRQOL, TRSC, and Karnofsky scores correlated r > .40. Use of the patient-friendly TRSC by patients and clinicians improves HRQOL. Documentation and management of symptoms also are improved. Tendency 3: ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SETS

  17. DISCUSSION OR POP QUIZ Which of the tendencies, if any, of OUTCOMES RESEARCH are not illustrated in this presentation? What in the table is not a measure of OUTCOME?

More Related