Should analyses of large, national palliative care data sets with patient reported outcomes (PROs) be restricted to services with high patient participation? A register-based study

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Should analyses of large, national palliative care data sets with patient reported outcomes (PROs) be restricted to services with high patient participation? A register-based study. / Hansen, Maiken Bang; Petersen, Morten Aagaard; Ross, Lone; Grønvold, Mogens.

I: BMC Palliative Care, Bind 19, 89, 2020.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Hansen, MB, Petersen, MA, Ross, L & Grønvold, M 2020, 'Should analyses of large, national palliative care data sets with patient reported outcomes (PROs) be restricted to services with high patient participation? A register-based study', BMC Palliative Care, bind 19, 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00596-z

APA

Hansen, M. B., Petersen, M. A., Ross, L., & Grønvold, M. (2020). Should analyses of large, national palliative care data sets with patient reported outcomes (PROs) be restricted to services with high patient participation? A register-based study. BMC Palliative Care, 19, [89]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00596-z

Vancouver

Hansen MB, Petersen MA, Ross L, Grønvold M. Should analyses of large, national palliative care data sets with patient reported outcomes (PROs) be restricted to services with high patient participation? A register-based study. BMC Palliative Care. 2020;19. 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00596-z

Author

Hansen, Maiken Bang ; Petersen, Morten Aagaard ; Ross, Lone ; Grønvold, Mogens. / Should analyses of large, national palliative care data sets with patient reported outcomes (PROs) be restricted to services with high patient participation? A register-based study. I: BMC Palliative Care. 2020 ; Bind 19.

Bibtex

@article{26ebaf9b09ba4771b83a39f0a896d0cd,
title = "Should analyses of large, national palliative care data sets with patient reported outcomes (PROs) be restricted to services with high patient participation? A register-based study",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: There is an increased interest in the analysis of large, national palliative care data sets including patient reported outcomes (PROs). No study has investigated if it was best to include or exclude data from services with low response rates in order to obtain the patient reported outcomes most representative of the national palliative care population. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate whether services with low response rates should be excluded from analyses to prevent effects of possible selection bias. METHODS: Data from the Danish Palliative Care Database from 24,589 specialized palliative care admittances of cancer patients was included. Patients reported ten aspects of quality of life using the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL-questionnaire. Multiple linear regression was performed to test if response rate was associated with the ten aspects of quality of life. RESULTS: The score of six quality of life aspects were significantly associated with response rate. However, in only two cases patients from specialized palliative care services with lower response rates (< 20.0%, 20.0-29.9%, 30.0-39.9%, 40.0-49.9% or 50.0-59.9) were feeling better than patients from services with high response rates (≥60%) and in both cases it was less than 2 points on a 0-100 scale. CONCLUSIONS: The study hypothesis, that patients from specialized palliative care services with lower response rates were reporting better quality of life than those from specialized palliative care services with high response rates, was not supported. This suggests that there is no reason to exclude data from specialized palliative care services with low response rates.",
keywords = "{\textquoteleft}Functioning{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Needs assessment{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Palliative care{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Patient participation{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Patient Reported Outcome Measures{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Quality of Life{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Response rate{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Selection Bias{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Sign and Symptoms{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Symptom assessment{\textquoteright}",
author = "Hansen, {Maiken Bang} and Petersen, {Morten Aagaard} and Lone Ross and Mogens Gr{\o}nvold",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.1186/s12904-020-00596-z",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
journal = "BMC Palliative Care",
issn = "1472-684X",
publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should analyses of large, national palliative care data sets with patient reported outcomes (PROs) be restricted to services with high patient participation? A register-based study

AU - Hansen, Maiken Bang

AU - Petersen, Morten Aagaard

AU - Ross, Lone

AU - Grønvold, Mogens

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - BACKGROUND: There is an increased interest in the analysis of large, national palliative care data sets including patient reported outcomes (PROs). No study has investigated if it was best to include or exclude data from services with low response rates in order to obtain the patient reported outcomes most representative of the national palliative care population. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate whether services with low response rates should be excluded from analyses to prevent effects of possible selection bias. METHODS: Data from the Danish Palliative Care Database from 24,589 specialized palliative care admittances of cancer patients was included. Patients reported ten aspects of quality of life using the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL-questionnaire. Multiple linear regression was performed to test if response rate was associated with the ten aspects of quality of life. RESULTS: The score of six quality of life aspects were significantly associated with response rate. However, in only two cases patients from specialized palliative care services with lower response rates (< 20.0%, 20.0-29.9%, 30.0-39.9%, 40.0-49.9% or 50.0-59.9) were feeling better than patients from services with high response rates (≥60%) and in both cases it was less than 2 points on a 0-100 scale. CONCLUSIONS: The study hypothesis, that patients from specialized palliative care services with lower response rates were reporting better quality of life than those from specialized palliative care services with high response rates, was not supported. This suggests that there is no reason to exclude data from specialized palliative care services with low response rates.

AB - BACKGROUND: There is an increased interest in the analysis of large, national palliative care data sets including patient reported outcomes (PROs). No study has investigated if it was best to include or exclude data from services with low response rates in order to obtain the patient reported outcomes most representative of the national palliative care population. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate whether services with low response rates should be excluded from analyses to prevent effects of possible selection bias. METHODS: Data from the Danish Palliative Care Database from 24,589 specialized palliative care admittances of cancer patients was included. Patients reported ten aspects of quality of life using the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL-questionnaire. Multiple linear regression was performed to test if response rate was associated with the ten aspects of quality of life. RESULTS: The score of six quality of life aspects were significantly associated with response rate. However, in only two cases patients from specialized palliative care services with lower response rates (< 20.0%, 20.0-29.9%, 30.0-39.9%, 40.0-49.9% or 50.0-59.9) were feeling better than patients from services with high response rates (≥60%) and in both cases it was less than 2 points on a 0-100 scale. CONCLUSIONS: The study hypothesis, that patients from specialized palliative care services with lower response rates were reporting better quality of life than those from specialized palliative care services with high response rates, was not supported. This suggests that there is no reason to exclude data from specialized palliative care services with low response rates.

KW - ‘Functioning’

KW - ‘Needs assessment’

KW - ‘Palliative care’

KW - ‘Patient participation’

KW - ‘Patient Reported Outcome Measures’

KW - ‘Quality of Life’

KW - ‘Response rate’

KW - ‘Selection Bias’

KW - ‘Sign and Symptoms’

KW - ‘Symptom assessment’

U2 - 10.1186/s12904-020-00596-z

DO - 10.1186/s12904-020-00596-z

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 32576171

AN - SCOPUS:85087026685

VL - 19

JO - BMC Palliative Care

JF - BMC Palliative Care

SN - 1472-684X

M1 - 89

ER -

ID: 244686077