Brundage M, Feldman-Stewart D, Leis A, Bezjak A, Degner L, Velji K, Zetes-Zanatta L, Tu D, Ritvo P, Pater J
Division of Cancer Control and Epidemiology, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6.
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 1;23(28):6949-56. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.12.514.
To determine which formats for presenting health-related quality of life (HRQL) data are interpreted most accurately and are most preferred by cancer patients. Patients often want a great deal of information about cancer treatments, including information relevant to HRQL. Clinical trials provide methodologically sound HRQL data that may be useful to patients.
In a multicenter study, 198 patients with previously treated cancer participated in a structured interview. Participants judged HRQL information presented in one textual and five graphical formats. Outcome measures included the accuracy of patients' interpretations and ease-of-use and helpfulness ratings for each format.
Correct interpretations ranged from 85% to 98% across formats (F = 10.3, P < .0001) with line graphs of mean HRQL scores over time being interpreted correctly most often. Older patients and less-educated patients were less likely to interpret graphs accurately (F = 7.3, P = .008; and F = 10.6, P = .001, respectively), but all groups were most accurate on simple line graphs. Multivariate analysis revealed that format type, participant age and education were independent predictors of accuracy rates. Patients' ratings also varied across formats both for ease of understanding scores (F = 12.1, P < .0001) and for helpfulness scores (F = 13.2, P < .0001), with line graphs being rated highest on both outcomes.
Patients generally prefer a simple linear representation of group mean HRQL scores, and can accurately interpret data presented in this format more than 98% of the time irrespective of their age group and educational level. The findings have important implications for the communication of clinical trial HRQL results.
确定呈现健康相关生活质量（HRQL）数据的哪种形式能被最准确地解读，且最受癌症患者青睐。患者通常想要大量关于癌症治疗的信息，包括与HRQL相关的信息。临床试验提供了方法学上可靠的HRQL数据，这些数据可能对患者有用。
在一项多中心研究中，198名曾接受过治疗的癌症患者参与了一次结构化访谈。参与者对以一种文本形式和五种图形形式呈现的HRQL信息进行了评判。结果指标包括患者解读的准确性以及每种形式的易用性和有用性评分。
各种形式的正确解读率在85%至98%之间（F = 10.3，P < .0001），其中平均HRQL随时间变化的折线图被正确解读的频率最高。老年患者和受教育程度较低的患者准确解读图表的可能性较小（分别为F = 7.3，P = .008；以及F = 10.6，P = .001），但所有组在简单折线图上的解读最为准确。多变量分析显示，形式类型、参与者年龄和教育程度是准确率的独立预测因素。患者的评分在各种形式之间也存在差异，无论是在理解分数方面（F = 12.1，P < .0001）还是在有用性分数方面（F = 13.2，P < .0001），折线图在这两个结果上的评分最高。
患者通常更喜欢用简单的线性方式呈现组平均HRQL分数，并且无论年龄组和教育水平如何，他们能在超过98%的时间里准确解读以这种形式呈现的数据。这些发现对临床试验HRQL结果的交流具有重要意义。
