CLINICAL USE OF HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES FROM CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS: PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM A SURVEY OF ONCOLOGISTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction There have been increasing efforts aimed at enhancing patient-centered care and incorporating patients' voice into clinical practice. As such, a growing body of literature has recognized the importance of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) outcomes from clinical trials. HRQOL outcomes are often collected in Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), along with survival data, morbidity, and toxicity data. HRQOL outcomes are measures reported directly by the patient through a questionnaire and represent the patient's own evaluation of symptoms, physical functioning status, psychological well-being, and global health-related quality of life. In clinical practice, HRQOL outcomes from Phase III cancer clinical trials are key elements in treatment decision making, clinical outcomes interpretation, and determination of prognosis. However, several challenges to the use of HRQOL outcomes have led to difficulties for oncologists in interpreting HRQOL results and have contributed to their unfamiliarity with these outcomes, resulting in a difficulty understanding what a clinically meaningful finding is. Objectives To describe oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, experience, facilitators and perceived barriers in HRQOL outcomes and to determine the association between these attributes and their demographic variables. Methods A cross-sectional web-based survey was sent to all practicing oncologists from the NCIC Clinical Trials Group in Canada, the NCRI Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom and the Multi-site Collaborative National Cancer Clinical Trials Groups in Australia to collect information on the oncologists' attributes described above. Results Previous findings from a qualitative preliminary study showed that there was strong support for reporting HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials, but that barriers to the uptake of HRQOL data in clinical practice included the accessibility, generalizability, and quality of the data; reporting methods; and oncologists' perceived lack of knowledge required to interpret the data. Conclusion The importance of HRQOL outcomes from RCTs to inform clinical practice is well described. However, there remain significant barriers to their uptake and use in clinical practice. Findings from this project will help develop future knowledge translation strategies in oncology and provide a basis for the design of effective ways to optimize the clinical applicability of these outcomes in the oncology practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".