Antonymy in the Terminological System of Logistics in English and Bulgarian

This paper reflects on logistics terminology and the relationships defining “oppositeness of meaning”. It briefly reviews theoretical assumptions in the sphere of antonymy and offers a classification of antonyms from a morphological and semantic point of view. The examples discussed are excerpted from documented materials standardized and consistent within the area of logistics. The findings are a good starting point for further research in this relatively new complex discipline whose terminological system is still in the process of establishment, evolution and modification. The topic is worth discussing in order to meet our syllabus goals and needs of learners who are going to function in a multinational environment and be faced with varieties of English as the primary language for international communication

Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity

Objective. Health professionals must enable patients to make informed decisions about health care choices through unbiased presentation of all options. This study examined whether presenting the decision as "opportunity" rather than "choice" biased individuals' preferences in the context of trial participation for cancer treatment. Methods. Self-selecting healthy women (N = 124) were randomly assigned to the following decision frames: opportunity to take part in the trial (opt-in), opportunity to be removed from the trial (opt-out), and choice to have standard treatment or take part in the trial (choice). The computer-based task required women to make a hypothetical choice about a real-world cancer treatment trial. The software presented the framed scenario, recorded initial preference, presented comprehensive and balanced information, traced participants' use of information during decision making, and recorded final decision. A posttask paper questionnaire assessed perceived risk, attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and satisfaction with decision. Results. Framing influenced women's immediate preferences. Opportunity frames, whether opt-in or opt-out, introduced a bias as they discouraged women from choosing standard treatment. Using the choice frame avoided this bias. The opt-out opportunity frame also affected women's perceived social norm; women felt that others endorsed the trial option. The framing bias was not present once participants had had the opportunity to view detailed information on the options within a patient decision aid format. There were no group differences in information acquisition and final decisions. Sixteen percent changed their initial preference after receiving full information. Conclusions. A "choice" frame, where all treatment options are explicit, is less likely to bias preferences. Presentation of full information in parallel, option-by-attribute format is likely to "de-bias" the decision frame. Tailoring of information to initial preferences would be ill-advised as preferences may change following detailed information

Patients report improvements in continuity of care when quality of life assessments are used routinely in oncology practice: Secondary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: In a randomised trial investigating the effects of regular use of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in oncology practice, we previously reported an improvement in communication (objective analysis of recorded encounters) and patient well-being. The secondary aims of the trial were to measure any impact on patient satisfaction and patients' perspectives on continuity and coordination of their care. METHODS: In a prospective trial involving 28 oncologists, 286 cancer patients were randomised to: (1) intervention arm: regular touch-screen completion of HRQOL with feedback to physicians; (2) attention-control arm: completion of HRQOL without feedback; and (3) control arm: no HRQOL assessment. Secondary outcomes were patients' experience of continuity of care (Medical Care Questionnaire, MCQ) including 'Communication', 'Coordination' and 'Preferences to see usual doctor' subscales, patients' satisfaction, and patients' and physicians' evaluation of the intervention. Analysis employed mixed-effects modelling, multiple regression and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention arm rated their continuity of care as better than the control group for 'Communication' subscale (p=0.03). No significant effects were found for 'Coordination' or 'Preferences to see usual doctor'. Patients' evaluation of the intervention was positive. More patients in the intervention group rated the HRQOL assessment as useful compared to the attention-control group (86% versus 29%), and reported their doctors considered daily activities, emotions and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Regular use of HRQOL measures in oncology practice brought changes to doctor-patient communication of sufficient magnitude and importance to be reported by patients. HRQOL data may improve care through facilitating rapport and building inter-personal relationships

Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30 : a confirmatory versus exploratory approach

Background: To derive preference-based measures from various condition-specific descriptive health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures. A general 2-stage method is evolved: 1) an item from each domain of the HRQOL measure is selected to form a health state classification system (HSCS); 2) a sample of health states is valued and an algorithm derived for estimating the utility of all possible health states. The aim of this analysis was to determine whether confirmatory or exploratory factor analysis (CFA, EFA) should be used to derive a cancer-specific utility measure from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Methods: Data were collected with the QLQ-C30v3 from 356 patients receiving palliative radiotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cancer (various primary sites). The dimensional structure of the QLQ-C30 was tested with EFA and CFA, the latter based on a conceptual model (the established domain structure of the QLQ-C30: physical, role, emotional, social and cognitive functioning, plus several symptoms) and clinical considerations (views of both patients and clinicians about issues relevant to HRQOL in cancer). The dimensions determined by each method were then subjected to item response theory, including Rasch analysis. Results: CFA results generally supported the proposed conceptual model, with residual correlations requiring only minor adjustments (namely, introduction of two cross-loadings) to improve model fit (increment χ2(2) = 77.78, p 75% observation at lowest score), 6 exhibited misfit to the Rasch model (fit residual > 2.5), none exhibited disordered item response thresholds, 4 exhibited DIF by gender or cancer site. Upon inspection of the remaining items, three were considered relatively less clinically important than the remaining nine. Conclusions: CFA appears more appropriate than EFA, given the well-established structure of the QLQ-C30 and its clinical relevance. Further, the confirmatory approach produced more interpretable results than the exploratory approach. Other aspects of the general method remain largely the same. The revised method will be applied to a large number of data sets as part of the international and interdisciplinary project to develop a multi-attribute utility instrument for cancer (MAUCa)

Patient experiences of an electronic PRO tailored feedback system for symptom management following upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery

Purpose Complications following upper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgery are common. Symptom-monitoring following discharge is not standardized. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) system providing feedback to patients and clinicians could support patients and improve outcomes. Little is known about patients’ experiences of using such systems. This qualitative sub-study explored patients’ perspectives of the benefits of using a novel ePRO system, developed as part of the mixed methods eRAPID pilot study, to support recovery following discharge after UGI surgery. Methods Patients completed the online ePRO symptom-report system post-discharge. Weekly interviews explored patients’ experiences of using ePRO, the acceptability of feedback generated and its value for supporting their recovery. Interviews were audio-recorded and targeted transcriptions were thematically analysed. Results Thirty-five interviews with 16 participants (11 men, mean age 63 years) were analysed. Two main themes were identified: (1) reassurance and (2) empowerment. Feelings of isolation were common; many patients felt uninformed regarding their expectations of recovery and whether their symptoms warranted clinical investigation. Participants were reassured by tailored feedback advising them to contact their care team, alleviating their anxiety. Patients reported feeling empowered by the ePRO system and in control of their symptoms and recovery. Conclusion Patients recovering at home following major cancer surgery regarded electronic symptom-monitoring and feedback as acceptable and beneficial. Patients perceived that the system enhanced information provision and provided a direct link to their care team. Patients felt that the system provided reassurance at a time of uncertainty and isolation, enabling them to feel in control of their symptoms and recovery

An audit of acute oncology services: patient experiences of admission procedures and staff utilisation of a new telephone triage system.

OBJECTIVES: In 2010, St. James Institute of Oncology (Leeds, UK) created a new acute oncology service (AOS) consisting of a new admissions unit with a nurse-led telephone triage (TT) system. This audit cycle (March 2011 and June 2013) evaluated patient experiences of the reconfigured AOS and staff use of the TT system. METHODS: Patient views were elicited via a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The TT forms were analysed descriptively evaluating completion and data quality, reported symptoms and their severity and advice given (including admission rates). RESULTS: Patients (n = 40) reported high satisfaction with the new AOS. However, 56 % of patients delayed 2 days or more before contacting the unit. In 2011, 26 % of all the admitted patients were triaged via the TT system; 133 TT forms were completed. In June 2013, 49 % of the admitted patients were triaged; 264 forms were completed. The most commonly reported symptoms on the TT forms were pain, pyrexia/rigors/infection, diarrhoea, vomiting and dyspnoea. Half of the patients using the TT system were admitted (52 % in 2011, 49 % in 2013). CONCLUSIONS: Our audit provided evidence of successful implementation of the TT system with the number of TT forms doubling from 2011 to 2013. The new AOS was endorsed by patients, with the majority satisfied with the care they received

Patient Experiences of Continuity of Cancer Care: Development of a new Medical Care Questionnaire (MCQ) for Oncology Outpatients

Objectives: To adapt the Components of Primary Care Index (CPCI) to be applicable to oncology outpatients and to assess the reliability and validity of the adapted instrument (renamed the Medical Care Questionnaire (MCQ)). Methods: The development and validation of the MCQ took place in four phases. Phase 1 reviewed the literature and examined existing measures. In Phase 2 the selected instrument (CPCI) was reviewed by a panel of experts using a stepwise consensus procedure. In Phase 3 the adapted 21-item MCQ was administered to 200 outpatients attending oncology appointments. The instrument was refined to 15-items and in Phase 4 it was completed by 477 oncology outpatients. The psychometric properties of the new instrument were assessed using exploratory factor analysis, multi-trait scaling analysis and by comparing MCQ scores between known groups. Results: Exploratory factor analysis of the 15-item MCQ suggested 3 subscales with acceptable to good reliability: “Communication” α=0.69; “Coordination” α=0.84; and “Preferences” α=0.75. Comparing known groups showed that patients who saw fewer doctors during their clinic visits reported stronger “Preferences” to see their usual doctor and rated “Communication” with their doctors as better than patients who saw more doctors during their clinic visits. Conclusion: The MCQ demonstrates good psychometric properties in the target population. It is a brief and simple to use instrument, which provides a valid perspective on patients’ experiences of communicating with doctors and their perceptions of the continuity and coordination of their cancer care. Patient Experiences of Continuity of Cancer Care: Development of a new Medical Care Questionnaire (MCQ) for Oncology Outpatient

Integrating Patient Reported Outcomes with Clinical Cancer Registry Data: A Feasibility Study of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) system.

Background: Routine measurement of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) linked with clinical data across the patient pathway is increasingly important for informing future care planning. The innovative electronic Patient-reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) system was developed to integrate PROs, collected online at specified post-diagnostic time-points, with clinical and treatment data in cancer registries. Objective: This study tested the technical and clinical feasibility of ePOCS by running the system with a sample of potentially curable breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients in their first 15 months post diagnosis. Methods: Patients completed questionnaires comprising multiple Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) via ePOCS within 6 months (T1), and at 9 (T2) and 15 (T3) months, post diagnosis. Feasibility outcomes included system informatics performance, patient recruitment, retention, representativeness and questionnaire completion (response rate), patient feedback, and administration burden involved in running the system. Results: ePOCS ran efficiently with few technical problems. Patient participation was 55.21% (636/1152) overall, although varied by approach mode, and was considerably higher among patients approached face-to-face (61.4%, 490/798) than by telephone (48.8%, 21/43) or letter (41.0%, 125/305). Older and less affluent patients were less likely to join (both P<.001). Most non-consenters (71.1%, 234/329) cited information technology reasons (ie, difficulty using a computer). Questionnaires were fully or partially completed by 85.1% (541/636) of invited participants at T1 (80 questions total), 70.0% (442/631) at T2 (102-108 questions), and 66.3% (414/624) at T3 (148-154 questions), and fully completed at all three time-points by 57.6% (344/597) of participants. Reminders (mainly via email) effectively prompted responses. The PROs were successfully linked with cancer registry data for 100% of patients (N=636). Participant feedback was encouraging and positive, with most patients reporting that they found ePOCS easy to use and that, if asked, they would continue using the system long-term (86.2%, 361/419). ePOCS was not administratively burdensome to run day-to-day, and patient-initiated inquiries averaged just 11 inquiries per month. Conclusions: The informatics underlying the ePOCS system demonstrated successful proof-of-concept – the system successfully linked PROs with registry data for 100% of the patients. The majority of patients were keen to engage. Participation rates are likely to improve as the Internet becomes more universally adopted. ePOCS can help overcome the challenges of routinely collecting PROs and linking with clinical data, which is integral for treatment and supportive care planning and for targeting service provision

A Rasch and factor analysis of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G)

BACKGROUND: Although the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General questionnaire (FACT-G) has been validated few studies have explored the factor structure of the instrument, in particular using non-sample dependent measurement techniques, such as Rasch Models. Furthermore, few studies have explored the relationship between item fit to the Rasch Model and clinical utility. The aim of this study was to investigate the dimensionality and measurement properties of the FACT-G with Rasch Models and Factor analysis. METHODS: A factor analysis and Rasch analysis (Partial Credit Model) was carried out on the FACT-G completed by a heterogeneous sample of cancer patients (n = 465). For the Rasch analysis item fit (infit mean squares ≥ 1.30), dimensionality and item invariance were assessed. The impact of removing misfitting items on the clinical utility of the subscales and FACT-G total scale was also assessed. RESULTS: The factor analysis demonstrated a four factor structure of the FACT-G which broadly corresponded to the four subscales of the instrument. Internal consistency for these four scales was very good (Cronbach's alpha 0.72 – 0.85). The Rasch analysis demonstrated that each of the subscales and the FACT-G total scale had misfitting items (infit means square ≥ 1.30). All these scales with the exception of the Social & Family Well-being Scale (SFWB) were unidimensional. When misfitting items were removed, the effect sizes and the clinical utility of the instrument were maintained for the subscales and the total FACT-G scores. CONCLUSION: The results of the traditional factor analysis and Rasch analysis of the FACT-G broadly agreed. Caution should be exercised when utilising the Social & Family Well-being scale and further work is required to determine whether this scale is best represented by two factors. Additionally, removing misfitting items from scales should be performed alongside an assessment of the impact on clinical utility