Patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for different graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores.


METHODS
We recruited cancer patients (any treatment and diagnosis) in four European countries and health professionals in the Netherlands. Using a questionnaire, we assessed objective and self-rated understanding of QLQ-C30 scores and preferences for five presentation styles (bar and line charts, with or without color coding, and a heat map).


RESULTS
In total, 548 patients and 227 health professionals participated. Eighty-three percent of patients and 85 % of professionals self-rated the graphs as very or quite easy to understand; this did not differ between graphical presentation styles. The mean percentage of correct answers to questions objectively assessing understanding was 59 % in patients, 78 % in medical specialists, and 74 % in other health professionals. Objective understanding did not differ between graphical formats in patients. For non-colored charts, 49.8 % of patients did not have a preference. Colored bar charts (39 %) were preferred over heat maps (20 %) and colored line charts (12 %). Medical specialists preferred heat maps (46 %) followed by non-colored bar charts (19 %), whereas these charts were equally valued by other health professionals (both 32 %).


CONCLUSIONS
The substantial discrepancy between participants' high self-rated and relatively low objective understanding of graphical presentation of PRO results highlights the need to provide sufficient guidance when presenting such results. It may be appropriate to adapt the presentation of PRO results to individual preferences. This could be facilitated when PROs are administered and presented to patients and health professionals electronically.
Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
W
W
Kuijpers
Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.|Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
J M
JM
Giesinger
Department of Internal Medicine, Kufstein County Hospital, Kufstein, Austria.
A
A
Zabernigg
Lynda Jackson Macmillan Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Center, Northwood Middlesex, UK.
T
T
Young
Hepatobiliary Research, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK.
E
E
Friend
Department of Medical Education, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
I M
IM
Tomaszewska
Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
N K
NK
Aaronson
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. bernhard.holzner@uki.at.
B
B
Holzner
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D032882:Comprehension; D003196:Computer Graphics; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005060:Europe; D005260:Female; D006305:Health Status Indicators; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009369:Neoplasms; D009426:Netherlands; D063868:Patient Outcome Assessment; D057240:Patient Preference / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011788:Quality of Life
Cancer patients; Graphical presentation; Health professionals; Patient-reported outcomes