MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208974656 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2021.0164

Performance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Large Pragmatic Trial of Home-Based Palliative Care (HomePal): Methodological and Practical Considerations for Embedded Patient-Centered Design

2021· article· en· W3208974656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard A. Mularski, Brian S. Mittman, Eric C. Haupt, Susan Wang, Sarah Hudson Scholle, Carmit K. McMullen, Maureen Henry, Ernest Shen, Huong Q. Nguyen, Ari Padilla, Mayra Macias, Janet Lee, Thearis A. Osuji, Kathleen Estrada, Rebecca Biddle, Byron Batz, Jasamin Disney, T. Martı́nez, Rose Roxas, Peter Khang, Dan Huynh, Mary Machado, Gina Andres, Ángel Vargas, Britta Torgrimson-Ojerio, Madeline Peyton, John Brandes, E. Schield, P.A. Ramey, Chris Carlson, Paula J. Edwards, Vicki Krepps, Jennifer A. Black, Erin Bruner, Mary Ann McBurnie, Ning Smith, Suzanne M. Gillespie, Kim Funkhouser, Morgan J. Fuoco, Dea Papajorgji‐Taylor, Phil Crawford, Kelly Kirk, Joe Cerizo, Kimberly Stewart, Daniel Vaughn, Meagan Shaw, Katie Vaughn, Joanne Lynn, Lynn F. Reinke, Charles Anderson, Summer Austin-Bowden, David Baker, Bill Clark, Janet M. Corrigan, Jennie Chin Hansen, K. H. Luke, Thomas Lee, Carol Levine, Kristine Maberry, Diane E. Meier, Carol Joy Phillips, June Simmons, Judy Thomas, Henry Werch, Peter Ganz, Mary D. Naylor, Soo Borson, Kevin C. Cain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProxy (statistics)Palliative careDescriptive statisticsResearch designMEDLINEClinical trialFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The research enterprise has embraced patient centeredness in embedded efficient pragmatic trials, but limited data exist on using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected as part of usual clinical care for research. Objectives: We sought to assess the performance of different assessment methods for obtaining PROs in a pragmatic cluster randomized trial (HomePal study) designed to compare two models of home-based palliative care (HBPC). Design: Descriptive analytics, comparative trends, and psychometric performance of PROs collected in the HomePal study; measures included Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), PROMIS-10, and others administered at baseline, 1, and 6 months. Setting/Subjects: HomePal was conducted in the Southern California and Northwest Kaiser Permanente regions in the United States; subjects were patients receiving HBPC and their caregivers. Measurements: We specifically compared ESAS obtained by research staff with those obtained by clinical HBPC nurses at the time of HBPC enrollment. We also compared ESAS completed by patients versus if done or assisted by a caregiver (proxy). Results: We enrolled 3533 patients and had 2205 ESAS measurements that met the criteria for analysis at baseline and 1447 at the one-month follow-up assessment. Research staff-obtained ESAS at admission to HBPC was higher overall (indicating more symptoms) than the clinically collected measure whether symptoms were reported by patients (31.7 ± 15.4 vs. 26.0 ± 13.4) or by proxies (36.9 ± 15.6 vs. 26.5 ± 13.5). These differences persisted with follow-up ESAS measures. Conclusions: We identified significant variability in PRO responses between different surveyors and whether proxy interaction was needed suggesting complex issues around PRO measure performance for pragmatic embedded trials. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03694431.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.402
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.398
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4020.398
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.464
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.038 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207