Dataset Information

Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) systems is increasing in cancer clinical care settings. This review comprehensively identifies existing PRO systems and explores how systems differ in the administration of PRO assessments, the integration of information into the clinic workflow and electronic health record (EHR) systems, and the reporting of PRO information.

Methods

Electronic PRO (e-PRO) systems were identified through a semistructured review of published studies, gray literature, and expert identification. System developers were contacted to provide detailed e-PRO system characteristics and clinical implementation information using a structured review form.

Results

A total of 33 unique systems implemented in cancer clinical practice were identified. Of these, 81% provided detailed information about system characteristics. Two system classifications were established: treatment-centered systems designed for patient monitoring during active cancer treatment (n = 8) and patient-centered systems following patients across treatment and survivorship periods (n = 19). There was little consensus on administration, integration, or result reporting between these system types. Patient-centered systems were more likely to provide user-friendly features such as at-home assessments, integration into larger electronic system networks (eg, EHRs), and more robust score reporting options. Well-established systems were more likely to have features that increased assessment flexibility (eg, location, automated reminders) and better clinical integration.

Conclusion

The number of e-PRO systems has increased. Systems can be programmed to have numerous features that facilitate integration of PRO assessment and routine monitoring into clinical care. Important barriers to system usability and widespread adoption include assessment flexibility, clinical integration, and high-quality data collection and reporting.

SUBMITTER: Jensen RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4094646 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care.

Jensen Roxanne E RE Snyder Claire F CF Abernethy Amy P AP Basch Ethan E Potosky Arnold L AL Roberts Aaron C AC Loeffler Deena R DR Reeve Bryce B BB

Journal of oncology practice 20131203 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>The use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) systems is increasing in cancer clinical care settings. This review comprehensively identifies existing PRO systems and explores how systems differ in the administration of PRO assessments, the integration of information into the clinic workflow and electronic health record (EHR) systems, and the reporting of PRO information.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic PRO (e-PRO) systems were identified through a semistructured review of publi ...[more]

PMID: 24301843

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe routine measurement of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical care using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is gaining momentum worldwide. However, a deep understanding of the mechanisms underpinning ePROM interventions that could inform their optimal design to improve health outcomes is needed.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the implicit mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of ePROM interventions and develop program theories about how and when ePROM interventions improve health outcomes.MethodsA realist synthesis of the literature about ePROM interventions in cancer clinical care was performed. A conceptual framework of ePROM interventions was constructed to define the scope of the review and frame the initial program theories. Literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL, supplemented by citation tracking, were performed to identify relevant literature to develop, refine, and test program theories. Quality appraisal of relevant studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsOverall, 61 studies were included in the realist synthesis: 15 (25%) mixed methods studies, 9 (15%) qualitative studies, 13 (21%) descriptive studies, 21 (34%) randomized controlled trials, and 3 (5%) quasi-experimental studies. In total, 3 initial program theories were developed regarding the salient components of ePROM interventions-remote self-reporting, real-time feedback to clinicians, and clinician-patient telecommunication. The refined theories posit that remote self-reporting enables patients to recognize and report symptoms accurately and empowers them to communicate these to clinicians, real-time feedback prompts clinicians to manage symptoms proactively, and clinician-patient telephone interactions and e-interactions between clinic encounters improve symptom management by reshaping how clinicians and patients communicate. However, the intervention may not achieve the intended benefit if ePROMs become a reminder to patients of their illness and are not meaningful to them and when real-time feedback to clinicians lacks relevance and increases the workload.ConclusionsThe key to improving health outcomes through ePROM interventions is enabling better symptom reporting and communication through remote symptom self-reporting, promoting proactive management of symptoms through real-time clinician feedback, and facilitating clinician-patient interactions. Patient engagement with self-reporting and clinician engagement in responding to feedback are vital and may reinforce each other in improving outcomes. Effective ePROM interventions might fundamentally alter how clinicians and patients interact between clinic encounters.

Project description:ImportanceCancer immunotherapy causes a wide range of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that require close and timely follow-up.ObjectivesTo compare the efficiency between electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) and traditional follow-up models in cancer immunotherapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis open-label randomized clinical trial was performed from September 1, 2019, to March 31, 2021. Patients were randomized to the ePRO model intervention or a control group by a computer system. A total of 28 Chinese tertiary care hospitals participated. Patients who were receiving cancer immunotherapy and could use smartphones or computers were eligible. A total of 300 patients were screened and 278 (92.7%) were enrolled.InterventionsThe control group was followed up using traditional methods, including clinic visits every 21 days and telephone follow-up every 3 months. In the intervention group, the ePRO follow-up model included a questionnaire of common symptoms and an image recognition function to evaluate grades of typical irAEs. Patients completed questionnaires weekly and uploaded pictures of results between visits. When grade 1 or 2 irAEs occurred, standardized advice was sent automatically. If grade 3 or 4 irAEs were reported, the model alerted the health care team for assessment and intervention immediately. All patients were followed up for 6 months or until treatment completion.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence of serious (grades 3 to 4) irAEs, emergency department (ED) visits, quality of life (QOL), time spent implementing the ePRO model, rate of treatment discontinuation, and death were compared between groups post intervention.ResultsA total of 278 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.8 [12.7 (range, 27-78)] years; 206 men [74.1%]) were included in the analysis, consisting of 141 in the intervention group and 137 in the control group. At the postintervention evaluation, the intervention group showed a reduced incidence of serious irAEs (29 of 141 [20.6%] vs 46 of 137 [33.6%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30-0.88]; P = .01), fewer ED visits (23 of 141 [16.3%] vs 41 of 137 [29.9%]; HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P = .01), a lower rate of treatment discontinuation (5 of 141 [3.6%] vs 15 of 137 [11.0%]; HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.11-0.85]; P = .02), a higher QOL level (mean [SD] score, 74.2 [15.1; 95% CI, 71.7-76.9] vs 64.7 [28.5; 95% CI, 61.0-68.4]; P = .001), and less time implementing follow-up (mean [SD], 8.2 [3.9; 95% CI, 5.0-10.6] minutes vs 36.1 [15.3; 95% CI, 33.6-38.8] minutes; P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between groups in death rates (2 of 141 [1.4%] vs 5 of 137 [3.6%]; HR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.07-1.99]; P = .28).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that the ePRO follow-up model can improve safety and QOL of patients receiving cancer immunotherapy as well as reduce time spent monitoring. This model may provide reliable information and management recommendations.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2100052819.

Project description:PurposeOur purpose was to report outcomes of a novel palliative radiation therapy protocol that omits computed tomography simulation and prospectively collects electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs).Methods and materialsPatients receiving extracranial, nonstereotactic, linear accelerator-based palliative radiation therapy who met inclusion criteria (no mask-based immobilization and a diagnostic computed tomography within 4 weeks) were eligible. Global pain was scored with the 11-point numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). Patients were coded as having osseous or soft tissue metastases and no/mild versus severe baseline pain (NPRS ≥ 5). Pain response at 4 weeks was measured according to the international consensus (no analgesia adjustment). Transition to ePRO questionnaires was completed in 3 phases. Initially, pain assessments were collected on paper for 11 months, then pilot ePROs for 1 month and then, after adjustments, revised ePROs from 1 year onwards. ePRO feasibility criteria were established with reference to the paper-based process and published evidence.ResultsBetween May 2018 and November 2019, 542 consecutive patients were screened, of whom 163 were eligible (30%), and 160 patients were successfully treated. The proportion of patients eligible for the study improved from approximately 20% to 50% by study end. Routine care pain monitoring via ePROs was feasible. One hundred twenty-seven patients had a baseline NPRS recording. Ninety-five patients had osseous (61% severe pain) and 32 had soft tissue (25% severe pain) metastases. Eighty-four patients (66%) were assessable for pain response at 4 weeks. In the 41 patients with severe osseous pain, overall and complete pain response was 78% and 22%, respectively.ConclusionsBy study completion, 50% of patients receiving palliative extracranial radiation therapy avoided simulation, streamlining the treatment process and maximizing patient convenience. Pain response for patients with severe pain from osseous lesions was equivalent to published evidence.

Project description:ImportanceElectronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsReport of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021.InterventionsIn the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care.Main outcomes and measuresThe 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available.ResultsAmong 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006).Conclusions and relevanceIn this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Dataset Information

Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets