The development and initial validation of an outcome measure for children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions

BackgroundThere is no validated outcome measure for use in children's palliative care outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Development of such a measure is required to realise the benefits of patient-centred outcome measure use that has been demonstrated in adult palliative care. Previous research into what is important to children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions has primarily focused on those with a cancer diagnosis. Much of this pre-existing research focuses on the perspectives of proxies, rather than those of the child or young person.AimTo develop an outcome measure, the children's palliative outcome scale (C-POS), for use by children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions and their families, and to establish face and content validity, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, feasibility, and acceptability of use.MethodsA sequential mixed-methods study was conducted in three phases, following the principles of patient-reported outcome measurement design described by Rothrock and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN).Phase 1 - gathering inputA systematic review was conducted with the aim of appraising the evidence on optimal recall period, response format and mode of administration to enable children and young people to participate in self-reporting on their health outcomes. A young person's advisory group was also consulted on the same topic.To inform face and content validity of C-POS a semi-structured qualitative interview study was conducted to seek the perspectives of children and young people, their parents/carers and siblings, health care professionals and NHS commissioners on priority symptoms, concerns, and care priorities. Participants were also asked to identify their preferences for the design of C-POS, in terms of recall period, response scale format and administration mode.Phase 2 - item generationPart 1: Parents and professionals with experience in caring for a child or young person with a life-limiting or life-threatening condition participated in a three-round modified ranking-type Delphi survey with the aim of establishing which outcomes identified in phase 1 of this thesis should be included in C-POS.Part 2: The young person’s advisory group were asked to select their priority outcomes from the items ranked in rounds 2 and 3 of the Delphi survey.Part 3: An item generation meeting was conducted with key stakeholders to develop initial C-POS versions based on the evidence collected so far.Phase 3 - item improvementCross-sectional cognitive interview study to establish acceptability, comprehensiveness, and comprehension of the initial C-POS versions within the target population.ResultsPhase 1 - gathering inputSystematic review: Findings showed that children under five years old cannot validly and reliably self-report health outcomes. Face scales demonstrated better psychometric properties than visual analogue or Likert scales. Computerised and paper scales generally show equivalent construct validity and children prefer computerised measures. Children seven years old and younger often think dichotomously so may need two response options. Those over eight years old can reliably use a three-point scale.Qualitative interview study: 106 participants were recruited: 26 children, 40 parents, 13 siblings, 15 health care professionals and 12 commissioners. Children found a short recall period and a visually appealing measure with 10 questions or fewer most acceptable. Children with life-limiting conditions were more familiar with using rating scales such as numeric and Likert than their healthy siblings and emphasised the importance of completing the measure alongside interactions with a healthcare professional. Parents assumed that electronic completion methods would be most feasible and acceptable but a small number of children preferred paper measures.Participants described many inter-related symptoms, concerns and care priorities impacting on all aspects of life. Data revealed an overarching theme of pursuing ‘normality’, described as children’s desire to undertake usual childhood activities. Parents need support with practical aspects of care to help realise this desire for normality.Phase 2 - item generationPart 1: Delphi survey (n=82). Ranking agreement between participants increased over the rounds, indicating movement towards consensus. Agreement between professional and parent ranking was poor. Professionals prioritised physical symptoms, whereas parents prioritised psychosocial and practical concerns.Part 2: 22 children and young people attended the young person's advisory group. They prioritised items related to living a ‘normal life’ such as seeing friends and attending school, in addition to items prioritised by the adult participants in the Delphi survey.Part 3: 22 participants attended the item generation meeting. Fiveage/developmental stage appropriPhase 3 - item improvementForty-eight individuals participated (36 parents; 12 children) in cognitive testing of the C-POS versions. This revealed challenges in the acceptability of some items for parents of non-verbal children and refinements were made. C-POS content and length were acceptable, and all questions were considered important. Parents reported that completing a measure that asks about what matters may be distressing but this is anticipated and acceptable.ConclusionsThis thesis demonstrates the development of the first UK patient-centred outcome measure for use with children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions and their families. By following established methodological criteria for patient-centred outcome measure development this thesis demonstrates that CPOS has robust face and content validity and is feasible and acceptable for use within the target population.</div

Achieving consensus on priority items for paediatric palliative care outcome measurement: Results from a modified Delphi survey, engagement with a children’s research involvement group and expert item generation

Background: There is no validated outcome measure for use in children’s palliative care outside sub-Saharan Africa. Stakeholders must be involved in the development of such measures to ensure face and content validity. Aim: To gain expert stakeholder consensus on items for inclusion in a paediatric palliative care outcome measure to establish face and content validity. Design: This study was conducted in two phases following Rothrock and COSMIN guidance on patient-reported outcome measure development. Phase 1: Three-round modified Delphi survey to establish consensus on priority items. Phase 2: Item generation meeting with key stakeholders to develop initial measure versions. A young person’s advisory group was also consulted on priority outcomes. Setting and participants: Delphi survey: Parents and professionals with experience of caring for a child with a life-limiting condition. Young person’s advisory group: young people age 10–20 years. Item generation meeting: bereaved parents, academics and clinicians. Results: Phase 1: Delphi survey (n = 82). Agreement increased from Kendall’s W = 0.17 to W = 0.61, indicating movement towards consensus. Agreement between professional and parent ranking was poor (Cohen’s kappa 0.13). Professionals prioritised physical symptoms, whereas parents prioritised psychosocial and practical concerns. Advisory group: Children (n = 22) prioritised items related to living a ‘normal life’ in addition to items prioritised by adult participants. Phase 2: Five age/developmental stage appropriate child and proxy-reported versions of C-POS, containing 13 items, were drafted. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance and feasibility of involving key stakeholders in PROM item generation, as important differences were found in the priority outcomes identified by children, parents and professionals

‘My life is a mess but I cope’: An analysis of the language children and young people use to describe their own life-limiting or life-threatening condition

Background: Children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions have multidimensional needs and heterogenous cognitive and communicative abilities. There is limited evidence to support clinicians to tailor their communication to each individual child. Aim: To explore the language children and young people use to describe their own condition, to inform strategies for discussing needs and priorities. Design: Positioned within a social constructivist paradigm, a secondary discourse analysis of semi-structured interview data was conducted incorporating the discourse dynamics approach for figurative language. Setting/participants: A total of 26 children and young people aged 5–17 years with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions (6 cancer; 20 non-cancer) were recruited from nine clinical services (six hospitals and three hospices) across two UK nations. Results: The language children and young people use positions them as ‘experts in their condition’. They combine medical terminology with their preferred terms for their body to describe symptoms and treatments, and use comparatives and superlatives to communicate their health status. Their language depicts their condition as a ‘series of (functional and social) losses’, which single them out from their peers as ‘the sick one’. Older children and young people also incorporate figurative language to expand their descriptions. Conclusion/discussion: Children and young people can provide rich descriptions of their condition. Paying attention to their lexical choices, and converging one’s language towards theirs, may enable more child-centred discussions. Expanding discussions about ‘what matters most’ with consideration of the losses and differences they have experienced may facilitate a fuller assessment of their concerns, preferences and priorities

Design and Administration of Patient-Centred Outcome Measures: The Perspectives of Children and Young People with Life-Limiting or Life-Threatening Conditions and Their Family Members

Background: Self-reported health data from children with life-limiting conditions is rarely collected. To improve acceptability and feasibility of child and family-centred outcome measures for children, they need to be designed in a way that reflects preferences, priorities and abilities. Objectives: The aim was to identify preferences for patient-reported outcome measure design (recall period, response format, length, administration mode) to improve the feasibility, acceptability, comprehensibility and relevance of a child and family-centred outcome measure, among children with life-limiting conditions and their family members. Method: A semi-structured qualitative interview study seeking the perspectives of children with life-limiting conditions, their siblings and parents on measure design was conducted. Participants were purposively sampled and recruited from nine UK sites. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. Results: A total of 79 participants were recruited: 39 children aged 5–17 years (26 living with a life-limiting condition; 13 healthy siblings) and 40 parents (of children aged 0–17 years). Children found a short recall period and a visually appealing measure with ten questions or fewer most acceptable. Children with life-limiting conditions were more familiar with using rating scales such as numeric and Likert than their healthy siblings. Children emphasised the importance of completing the measure alongside interactions with a healthcare professional to enable them to talk about their responses. While parents assumed that electronic completion methods would be most feasible and acceptable, a small number of children preferred paper. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that children with life-limiting conditions can engage in communicating preferences regarding the design of a patient-centred outcome measure. Where possible, children should be given the opportunity to participate in the measure development process to enhance acceptability and uptake in clinical practice. Results of this study should be considered in future research on outcome measure development in children

Spiritual, religious, and existential concerns of children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions: A qualitative interview study

Background:Despite being a core domain of palliative care, primary data on spiritual and existential concerns has rarely been collected among children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions and their families. Existing evidence has tended to focus on the religious aspects among children with cancer.Aim:To identify the spiritual needs of children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions.Design:Cross-sectional semi-structured, qualitative interview study with children, families and health and social care professionals. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using Framework analysisSetting/participants:Purposively sampled children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions, their parents and siblings, health and social care professionals recruited from six hospitals and three children’s hospices in the UK, and commissioners of paediatric palliative care services recruited through networks and a national charity.Results:One hundred six participants were interviewed: 26 children (5–17 years), 53 family members (parents/carers of children 0–17 years and siblings (5–17 years)), 27 professionals (health and social care professionals and commissioners of paediatric palliative care). Themes included: living life to the fullest, meaning of life and leaving a legacy, uncertainty about the future, determination to survive, accepting or fighting the future and role of religion. Children as young as 5 years old identified needs or concerns in the spiritual domain of care.Conclusions:Addressing spiritual concerns is essential to providing child- and family-centred palliative care. Eliciting spiritual concerns may enable health and social care professionals to identify the things that can support and enhance a meaningful life and legacy for children and their families

Spiritual, religious, and existential concerns of children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions: A qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND: Despite being a core domain of palliative care, primary data on spiritual and existential concerns has rarely been collected among children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions and their families. Existing evidence has tended to focus on the religious aspects among children with cancer. AIM: To identify the spiritual needs of children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional semi-structured, qualitative interview study with children, families and health and social care professionals. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using Framework analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Purposively sampled children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions, their parents and siblings, health and social care professionals recruited from six hospitals and three children's hospices in the UK, and commissioners of paediatric palliative care services recruited through networks and a national charity. RESULTS: One hundred six participants were interviewed: 26 children (5-17 years), 53 family members (parents/carers of children 0-17 years and siblings (5-17 years)), 27 professionals (health and social care professionals and commissioners of paediatric palliative care). Themes included: living life to the fullest, meaning of life and leaving a legacy, uncertainty about the future, determination to survive, accepting or fighting the future and role of religion. Children as young as 5 years old identified needs or concerns in the spiritual domain of care. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing spiritual concerns is essential to providing child- and family-centred palliative care. Eliciting spiritual concerns may enable health and social care professionals to identify the things that can support and enhance a meaningful life and legacy for children and their families

Modifying Hofstee standard setting for assessments that vary in difficulty, and to determine boundaries for different levels of achievement.

BACKGROUND: Fixed mark grade boundaries for non-linear assessment scales fail to account for variations in assessment difficulty. Where assessment difficulty varies more than ability of successive cohorts or the quality of the teaching, anchoring grade boundaries to median cohort performance should provide an effective method for setting standards. METHODS: This study investigated the use of a modified Hofstee (MH) method for setting unsatisfactory/satisfactory and satisfactory/excellent grade boundaries for multiple choice question-style assessments, adjusted using the cohort median to obviate the effect of subjective judgements and provision of grade quotas. RESULTS: Outcomes for the MH method were compared with formula scoring/correction for guessing (FS/CFG) for 11 assessments, indicating that there were no significant differences between MH and FS/CFG in either the effective unsatisfactory/satisfactory grade boundary or the proportion of unsatisfactory graded candidates (p > 0.05). However the boundary for excellent performance was significantly higher for MH (p < 0.01), and the proportion of candidates returned as excellent was significantly lower (p < 0.01). MH also generated performance profiles and pass marks that were not significantly different from those given by the Ebel method of criterion-referenced standard setting. CONCLUSIONS: This supports MH as an objective model for calculating variable grade boundaries, adjusted for test difficulty. Furthermore, it easily creates boundaries for unsatisfactory/satisfactory and satisfactory/excellent performance that are protected against grade inflation. It could be implemented as a stand-alone method of standard setting, or as part of the post-examination analysis of results for assessments for which pre-examination criterion-referenced standard setting is employed

Implementation of child-centred outcome measures in routine paediatric healthcare practice: a systematic review

Background: Person-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) are commonly used in routine adult healthcare to measure and improve outcomes, but less attention has been paid to PCOMs in children’s services. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and synthesise existing evidence of the determinants, strategies, and mechanisms that influence the implementation of PCOMs into paediatric healthcare practice. Methods: The review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Databased searched included CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsycInfo. Google scholar was also searched for grey literature on 25th March 2022. Studies were included if the setting was a children’s healthcare service, investigating the implementation or use of an outcome measure or screening tool in healthcare practice, and reported outcomes relating to use of a measure. Data were tabulated and thematically analysed through deductive coding to the constructs of the adapted-Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results were presented as a narrative synthesis, and a logic model developed. Results: We retained 69 studies, conducted across primary (n = 14), secondary (n = 13), tertiary (n = 37), and community (n = 8) healthcare settings, including both child self-report (n = 46) and parent-proxy (n = 47) measures. The most frequently reported barriers to measure implementation included staff lack of knowledge about how the measure may improve care and outcomes; the complexity of using and implementing the measure; and a lack of resources to support implementation and its continued use including funding and staff. The most frequently reported facilitators of implementation and continued use include educating and training staff and families on: how to implement and use the measure; the advantages of using PCOMs over current practice; and the benefit their use has on patient care and outcomes. The resulting logic model presents the mechanisms through which strategies can reduce the barriers to implementation and support the use of PCOMs in practice. Conclusions: These findings can be used to support the development of context-specific implementation plans through a combination of existing strategies. This will enable the implementation of PCOMs into routine paediatric healthcare practice to empower settings to better identify and improve child-centred outcomes. Trial registration: Prospero CRD 42022330013

Fulvestrant plus anastrozole or placebo versus exemestane alone after progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (SoFEA): a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised trial

SummaryBackgroundThe optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation.MethodsIn a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea).FindingsBetween March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4–5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6–5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0–4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79–1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3–4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight).InterpretationAfter loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane.FundingCancer Research UK and AstraZeneca