Eppard, Wayland

Abstract [Background] Patient advocates bring a unique, valuable perspective and presence to SPOREs. However, although patient advocates are recommended members of SPORE grants, guidelines are not given on the role of advocates or on measurement of the performance of advocates. [Methods] The Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE Patient Advocate Advisory Committee has developed a participation measurement tool. This tool will underpin and augment evaluations of the individual advocate contributions by the program PI and the SPORE project leaders. The Advocate Advisory Committee Chair will review the evaluations with the individual advocates. Annually, the advocate committee will review the performance of the group by the standard of the metrics. [Results] Advocates kept a log of their SPORE activities for four months then worked with a statistician to discern patterns of measurable, evaluable behaviors. The determined evaluable areas are training, scientific activity, meeting attendance, communication. Currently, those metrics are being tracked. Advocates developed the metrics together and report activities at the monthly advocate meetings. Currently, activities are simply tracked and categorized. No minimum standards are set. This will be the third step in the development of the metrics. [Conclusions] This approach is the first step in the development of meaningful evaluation of advocate SPORE activities. It quantifies the participation of advocates in the SPORE and provides the basis for developing a qualitative performance evaluation. The SPORE PI and the Committee Chair will use the evaluations to interpret the involvement of advocates in SPORE research and activities and to plan interventions to strengthen the advocate contributions to the SPORE. Citation Format: Cynthia Chauhan, Wayland Eppard, Lori Denison, Debra Gearhart, Lawanna Holmes, Ruth Kraft, Linda Miller, Mary A Sitta, Mary L Smith, James Ingle, Matthew Goetz. Measurements of advocate participation in and contributions to the Mayo Clinic breast cancer SPORE [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-04.

Examining the patient's subjective experience in prospective clinical comparative effectiveness research (CER) of oncology treatments or process interventions is essential for informing decision making. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the standard tools for directly eliciting the patient experience. There are currently no widely accepted standards for developing or implementing PRO measures in CER. Recommendations for the design and implementation of PRO measures in CER were developed via a standardized process including multistakeholder interviews, a technical working group, and public comments. Key recommendations are to include assessment of patient-reported symptoms as well as health-related quality of life in all prospective clinical CER studies in adult oncology; to identify symptoms relevant to a particular study population and context based on literature review and/or qualitative and quantitative methods; to assure that PRO measures used are valid, reliable, and sensitive in a comparable population (measures particularly recommended include EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT, MDASI, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS); to collect PRO data electronically whenever possible; to employ methods that minimize missing patient reports and include a plan for analyzing and reporting missing PRO data; to report the proportion of responders and cumulative distribution of responses in addition to mean changes in scores; and to publish results of PRO analyses simultaneously with other clinical outcomes. Twelve core symptoms are recommended for consideration in studies in advanced or metastatic cancers. Adherence to methodologic standards for the selection, implementation, and analysis/reporting of PRO measures will lead to an understanding of the patient experience that informs better decisions by patients, providers, regulators, and payers.