Dataset Information

Improving the care of children with advanced cancer by using an electronic patient-reported feedback intervention: results from the PediQUEST randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study aimed to determine whether feeding back patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to providers and families of children with advanced cancer improves symptom distress and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Patients and methods

This study was a parallel, multicentered pilot randomized controlled trial. At most once per week, children age ≥ 2 years old with advanced cancer or their parent completed the computer-based Pediatric Quality of Life and Evaluation of Symptoms Technology (PediQUEST) survey consisting of age- and respondent-adapted versions of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 Generic Core Scales (PedsQL4.0), and an overall Sickness question. In the intervention group (n = 51), oncologists and families received printed reports summarizing PROs; e-mails were sent to oncologists and subspecialists when predetermined scores were exceeded. No feedback was provided in the control group (n = 53). Primary outcomes included linear trends of MSAS, PedsQL4.0 total and subscale scores, and Sickness scores during 20 weeks of follow-up, along with child, parent, and provider satisfaction with PediQUEST feedback.

Results

Feedback did not significantly affect average MSAS, PedsQL4.0, or Sickness score trends. Post hoc subgroup analyses among children age ≥ 8 years who survived 20 weeks showed that feedback improved PedsQL4.0 emotional (+8.1; 95% CI, 1.8 to 14.4) and Sickness (-8.2; 95% CI, -14.2 to -2.2) scores. PediQUEST reports were valued by children, parents, and providers and contributed at least sometimes to physician initiation of a psychosocial consult (56%).

Conclusion

Although routine feedback of PROs did not significantly affect the child's symptoms or HRQoL, changes were in expected directions and improvements observed in emotional HRQoL through exploratory analyses were encouraging. Importantly, children, parents, and providers value PRO feedback.

SUBMITTER: Wolfe J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3970170 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionUsing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with children have been described as 'giving a voice to the child'. Few studies have examined the routine use of these measures as potentially therapeutic interventions. This study aims to investigate: (1) the effectiveness of feedback using graphical displays of information from electronic PROMs (ePROMs) that target health-related quality of life, to improve health outcomes, referrals and treatment satisfaction and (2) the implementation of ePROMs and graphical displays by assessing acceptability, sustainability, cost, fidelity and context of the intervention and study processes.Methods and analysisA hybrid II effectiveness-implementation study will be conducted from February 2020 with children with life-altering skin conditions attending two outpatient clinics at a specialist paediatric children's hospital. A pragmatic randomised controlled trial and mixed methods process evaluation will be completed. Randomisation will occur at the child participant level. Children or parent proxies completing baseline ePROMs will be randomised to: (1) completion of ePROMs plus graphical displays of ePROM results to treating clinicians in consultations, versus (2) completion of ePROMs without graphical display of ePROM results. The primary outcome of the effectiveness trial will be overall health-related quality of life of children. Secondary outcomes will include other health-related quality of life outcomes (eg, child psychosocial and physical health, parent psychosocial health), referrals and treatment satisfaction. Trial data will be primarily analysed using linear mixed-effects models; and implementation data using inductive thematic analysis of interviews, meeting minutes, observational field notes and study communication mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from Children's Health Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/2019/QCHQ/56290), The University of Queensland (2019002233) and Queensland University of Technology (1900000847). Dissemination will occur through stakeholder groups, scientific meetings and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000174987).

Project description:Objective The aim of the study is to identify and prioritize early intervention (EI) stakeholders' perspectives of supports and barriers to implementing the Young Children's Participation and Environment Measure (YC-PEM), an electronic patient-reported outcome (e-PRO) tool, for scaling its implementation across multiple local and state EI programs.Methods An explanatory sequential (quan > QUAL) mixed-methods study was conducted with EI families (n = 6), service coordinators (n = 9), and program leadership (n = 7). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were used to share select quantitative pragmatic trial results (e.g., percentages for perceived helpfulness of implementation strategies) and elicit stakeholder perspectives to contextualize these results. Three study staff deductively coded transcripts to constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data within CFIR constructs were inductively analyzed to generate themes that were rated by national early childhood advisors for their relevance to longer term implementation.Results All three stakeholder groups (i.e., families, service coordinators, program leadership) identified thematic supports and barriers across multiple constructs within each of four CFIR domains: (1) Six themes for "intervention characteristics," (2) Six themes for "process," (3) three themes for "inner setting," and (4) four themes for "outer setting." For example, all stakeholder groups described the value of the YC-PEM e-PRO in forging connections and eliciting meaningful information about family priorities for efficient service plan development ("intervention characteristics"). Stakeholders prioritized reaching families with diverse linguistic preferences and user navigation needs, further tailoring its interface with automated data capture and exchange processes ("process"); and fostering a positive implementation climate ("inner setting"). Service coordinators and program leadership further articulated the value of YC-PEM e-PRO results for improving EI access ("outer setting").Conclusion Results demonstrate the YC-PEM e-PRO is an evidence-based intervention that is viable for implementation. Optimizations to its interface are needed before undertaking hybrid type-2 and 3 multisite trials to test these implementation strategies across state and local EI programs with electronic data capture capabilities and diverse levels of organizational readiness and resources for implementation.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough absolute risk of death associated with raised blood pressure increases with age, the benefits of treatment are greater in older patients. However, fewer patients in this group are identified, treated, and controlled.AimTo evaluate the impact of the provision of different levels of feedback on identification, treatment, and control of older patients with hypertension.Design of studyRandomised controlled trial.SettingFifty-two Scottish general practices.MethodPractices were randomly allocated to either control (n = 19), audit only feedback (n = 16), or audit plus risk feedback, prioritising patients by absolute risk (n = 17). Electronic data were extracted from practice computer systems annually from 1999 to 2001 and used to develop feedback. Data were collected for 30 345 patients aged 65-79 years.ResultsThe majority of known patients with hypertension in each group had an initial blood pressure recorded (control = 89.6%; audit = 80.4%; risk = 96.1%) and this increased over the study period (control = 92.3%; audit = 86.0%; risk = 96.6%). Initially, more than 80% of patients in each group were treated but many were uncontrolled (blood pressure >/=160/ >/=90 mmHg) (control = 41.5%; audit = 41.3%; risk = 36.1%). The numbers of untreated and uncontrolled patients in each group reduced (control = 32.3%; audit = 38.3%; risk = 32.6%). There was some evidence of a significant difference in mean systolic pressure between the audit plus risk and audit only groups: (149.6 versus 152.7 mmHg; P = 0.019) and of significantly greater control in the audit plus risk group compared with the other groups 49.4% (versus audit only = 35.4%; versus control = 46.5%; odds ratio = 1.72 [95% confidence interval = 1.09 to 2.70]; P = 0.019).ConclusionsLevels of identification, treatment, and control improved in each group. Although there were still significant numbers of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, there is some evidence to suggest that providing patient-specific feedback may have a positive impact on identification and management of hypertension in older people and produce an increase in control.

Project description:BackgroundPatient reported outcomes (PROs) have been associated with improved symptom management and quality of life in patients with cancer. However, the implementation of PROs in an academic clinical practice has not been thoroughly described. Here we report on the execution, feasibility and healthcare utilization outcomes of an electronic PRO (ePRO) application for cancer patients at an academic medical center.MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial comparing an experimental ePRO arm to standard of care in patients with advanced cancer in the thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary oncology groups at Stanford Cancer Center from March 2018 to November 2019. We describe the pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation phases of the ePRO arm, technological barriers, electronic health record (EHR) integration, clinician burden, and patient data privacy and security. Feasibility was pre-specified to be at least 70% completion of all questionnaires. Acceptability was based on patient and clinician feedback. Ambulatory healthcare utilization was assessed by reviewing numbers of phone messages, electronic portal messages, and referrals for supportive care.ResultsOf 617 ePRO questionnaires sent to 72 patients, 445 (72%) were completed. Most clinicians (87.5%) and patients (93%) felt neutral or positive about the ePRO tool's ease of use. Exposure to ePRO did not cause a measurable change in ambulatory healthcare utilization, with a median of less than two phone messages and supportive care referrals, and 5-6 portal messages.ConclusionsWeb-based ePRO tools for patients with advanced cancer are feasible and acceptable without increasing clinical burden. Key lessons include the importance of pilot testing, engagement of stakeholders at all levels, and the need for customization by disease group. Future directions for this work include completion of EHR integration, expansion to other centers, and development of integrated workflows for routine clinical practice.