Patient-Centered Outcomes Research In Advanced Stage Lung Cancer: Study Design and Population SciDoc Publishers | Open Access | Science Journals | Media Partners

In 2013, researchers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to establish a protocol that outlines treatment options for patients who have stage IV lung cancer. With collaborators at 3 other cancer centers, UNMC researchers will compare treatment preferences among different patient groups when available drugs offer the same survival but different side effects. Patient preferences identified in this study can be used to inform clinical practice. This paper describes study methods and population selection for this patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) on stage IV lung cancer patients and the possible significance of this research for other disease states. PCOR provides information about the best available evidence to help patients and their health care providers make more informed decisions. This research is intended to give patients a better understanding of the prevention, treatment, and care options available and the science that supports those options, and to encourage physicians and other clinicians to adopt a more patient-centered approach to treatment [1]. PCOR projects require patient voices to be heard in discussions with their physicians in determining the value of treatment options. The goal of a PCOR study is to give patients and their family members the information they need to answer patient-focused questions such as “Given my personal characteristics, conditions, and preferences, what should I expect will happen to me?” or “What are my options and what are the benefits and harms of those options?” Conducting a rigorous PCOR study is challenging. In this type of research, the trade-offs between practical issues and internally valid designs must be weighed. These trade-offs can be resolved by questioning the validity of the study design or the accuracy of inferences drawn. There is no simple formula for determining external validity. Researchers must make judgments regarding whether the findings would be applicable in other populations. These judgments can always be challenged, and researchers may have to defend the study’s validity. Concern about the external validity of the results of PCOR studies is warranted, because such studies focus on a very specific patient population’s preferences and choices. The research raises the question, “can the results of a PCOR be applied across different populations, in different settings, and in other periods of time?” We propose that the outcomes of our study will be translatable to disease conditions other than late