Exploring the Use and Perception of Patient-Reported Outcome Evidence Among Cardiologists and Patients With Heart Failure
Author(s)
Anna Niklasson, MSc, PhD1, Nenad Medic, MSc, PhD2, Calvin N. Ho, PhD3, Hannah Powell, BSc, MSc4.
1AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 3AstraZeneca, Gatihersburg, MD, USA, 4IQVIA, London, United Kingdom.
1AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 3AstraZeneca, Gatihersburg, MD, USA, 4IQVIA, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the use, understanding, and perception of patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence among cardiologists specializing in heart failure (HF) and patients living with HF in the United States and United Kingdom, and to identify preferences for PRO evidence dissemination and the impact of PRO data on treatment decision-making.
METHODS: Teleconference focus group sessions following semi-structured interview guides were conducted separately with 25 HF-specialist cardiologists (US: n=12; UK: n=13) and 28 patients with HF (US: n=15; UK: n=13). Sessions were held in two iterative waves. All discussions were anonymized and analysed thematically.
RESULTS: Cardiologists demonstrated a good understanding of PRO evidence, though there was variation in their understanding of its scientific rigor. Most cardiologists deemed PRO evidence moderately important for treatment decision-making, particularly when reviewed alongside clinical outcome data. On a scale of 0 (“not important at all”) to 3 (“highly important”), US cardiologists’ average rating was 1.8; UK cardiologists rated it higher, averaging 2.5. Patients had limited awareness of PRO evidence from clinical trials but recognized related concepts discussed during clinical visits, often perceiving such evidence as anecdotal. Nevertheless, patients rated the importance of PRO evidence for making informed decisions as moderate to high (US average 2.4; UK average 2.2). While patients expressed interest in independently accessing PRO information, they preferred that healthcare professionals initiate these discussions. Cardiologists favoured PRO evidence published alongside traditional clinical data in high-impact journals, with clear visual aids and lay language interpretations. In contrast, patients preferred online resources and accessible brochures incorporating simple visuals.
CONCLUSIONS: Both cardiologists and patients recognize the value of PRO evidence in heart failure care, yet its use in clinical decision-making remain limited. Targeted dissemination methods—including integrated publications, patient-friendly materials, and aids to enhance clinician-patient dialogue—may increase the impact and utility of PRO evidence in clinical practice.
METHODS: Teleconference focus group sessions following semi-structured interview guides were conducted separately with 25 HF-specialist cardiologists (US: n=12; UK: n=13) and 28 patients with HF (US: n=15; UK: n=13). Sessions were held in two iterative waves. All discussions were anonymized and analysed thematically.
RESULTS: Cardiologists demonstrated a good understanding of PRO evidence, though there was variation in their understanding of its scientific rigor. Most cardiologists deemed PRO evidence moderately important for treatment decision-making, particularly when reviewed alongside clinical outcome data. On a scale of 0 (“not important at all”) to 3 (“highly important”), US cardiologists’ average rating was 1.8; UK cardiologists rated it higher, averaging 2.5. Patients had limited awareness of PRO evidence from clinical trials but recognized related concepts discussed during clinical visits, often perceiving such evidence as anecdotal. Nevertheless, patients rated the importance of PRO evidence for making informed decisions as moderate to high (US average 2.4; UK average 2.2). While patients expressed interest in independently accessing PRO information, they preferred that healthcare professionals initiate these discussions. Cardiologists favoured PRO evidence published alongside traditional clinical data in high-impact journals, with clear visual aids and lay language interpretations. In contrast, patients preferred online resources and accessible brochures incorporating simple visuals.
CONCLUSIONS: Both cardiologists and patients recognize the value of PRO evidence in heart failure care, yet its use in clinical decision-making remain limited. Targeted dissemination methods—including integrated publications, patient-friendly materials, and aids to enhance clinician-patient dialogue—may increase the impact and utility of PRO evidence in clinical practice.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
PCR95
Topic
Patient-Centered Research, Real World Data & Information Systems, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Patient Behavior and Incentives
Disease
Cardiovascular Disorders (including MI, Stroke, Circulatory), No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas