Dataset Information

Electronic symptom monitoring in patients with metastatic lung cancer: a feasibility study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To design an electronic questionnaire for symptom monitoring and to evaluate the feasibility, usability and acceptability when applied to patients with metastatic lung cancer. SETTING:Single-centre feasibility study. PARTICIPANTS:Patients with stage IV lung cancer in antineoplastic treatment. INTERVENTIONS:This study describes the first three phases of a complex intervention design: phase 1, development of the intervention; phase 2, feasibility testing and phase 3, evaluation of the intervention. In phase 1, items were selected for the questionnaire and adjusted following patient interviews. In phase 2, patients completed the electronic questionnaire weekly during a 3-week feasibility test. In case of symptom deterioration, a nurse was notified with the aim to contact the patient. In phase 3, patients evaluated phase 2 by paper questionnaires, and interviews were conducted with the participating nurses. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The study outcomes: phase 1, usability and relevance; phase 2, recruitment rate, compliance and threshold functionality and phase 3, usability, acceptability and relevance. RESULTS:In phase 1, a questionnaire was designed and reviewed by patients (n=8). The interviews revealed high usability and relevance of the intervention.For phases 2 and 3, 20 of 29 approached patients (69%) responded to the questionnaire on a weekly basis. Two patients did not complete any questionnaires (compliance 90%). The remaining 18 patients completed 65 of a total of 72 possible questionnaires (7 missed, 93% completed). Reported symptoms led to a phone call from a nurse in 30% of the responses.The patients reported high usability and acceptability of questionnaire and software. The substance of the telephonic conversations was relevant, and the study set-up was logistically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS:An electronic questionnaire designed for symptom monitoring revealed high usability, acceptability and relevance in the target population. In conclusion, the study set-up was considered feasible for a randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03529851.

SUBMITTER: Friis RB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7304800 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Electronic symptom monitoring in patients with metastatic lung cancer: a feasibility study.

Friis Rasmus Blechingberg RB Hjollund Niels Henrik NH Mejdahl Caroline Trillingsgaard CT Pappot Helle H Skuladottir Halla H

BMJ open 20200617 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>To design an electronic questionnaire for symptom monitoring and to evaluate the feasibility, usability and acceptability when applied to patients with metastatic lung cancer.<h4>Setting</h4>Single-centre feasibility study.<h4>Participants</h4>Patients with stage IV lung cancer in antineoplastic treatment.<h4>Interventions</h4>This study describes the first three phases of a complex intervention design: phase 1, development of the intervention; phase 2, feasibility testing and ...[more]

PMID: 32554725

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hospitalized patients with cancer experience a high symptom burden, which is associated with poor health outcomes and increased health care utilization. However, studies investigating symptom monitoring interventions in this population are lacking. We conducted a pilot randomized trial to assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a symptom monitoring intervention to improve symptom management in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We randomly assigned patients with advanced cancer who were admitted to the inpatient oncology service to a symptom monitoring intervention or usual care. Patients in both arms self-reported their symptoms daily (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Patient Health Questionnaire-4). Patients assigned to the intervention had their symptom reports presented graphically with alerts for moderate/severe symptoms during daily team rounds. The primary end point of the study was feasibility. We defined the intervention as feasible if >75% of participants hospitalized >2?days completed >2 symptom reports. We observed daily rounds to determine whether clinicians discussed and developed a plan to address patients' symptoms. We used regression models to assess intervention effects on patients' symptoms throughout their hospitalization, readmission risk, and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS:Among 150 enrolled patients (81.1% enrollment), 94.2% completed >2 symptom reports. Clinicians discussed 60.4% of the symptom reports and developed a plan to address the symptoms highlighted by the symptom reports 20.8% of the time. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had a greater proportion of days with lower psychological distress (B?=?0.12, P?=?0.008), but no significant difference in the proportion of days with improved Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-physical symptoms (B?=?0.07, P?=?0.138). Intervention patients had lower readmission risk (hazard ratio?=?0.68, P?=?0.224), although this difference was not significant. We found no significant intervention effects on hospital LOS (B?=?0.16, P?=?0.862). CONCLUSIONS:This symptom monitoring intervention is feasible and demonstrates encouraging preliminary efficacy for improving patients' symptoms and readmission risk.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02891993.

Project description:BackgroundAdvances in peri-operative care of surgical oncology patients result in shorter hospital stays. Earlier discharge may bring benefits, but complications can occur while patients are recovering at home. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems may enhance remote, real-time symptom monitoring and detection of complications after hospital discharge, thereby improving patient safety and outcomes. Evidence of the effectiveness of ePRO systems in surgical oncology is lacking. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery.MethodsA pilot study in two UK hospitals included patients who had undergone cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery. Participants completed the ePRO symptom-report at discharge, twice in the first week and weekly post-discharge. Symptom-report completeness, system actions, barriers to using the ePRO system and technical performance were examined. The ePRO surgery system is an online symptom-report that allows clinicians to view patient symptom-reports within hospital electronic health records and was developed as part of the eRAPID project. Clinically derived algorithms provide patients with tailored self-management advice, prompts to contact a clinician or automated clinician alerts depending on symptom severity. Interviews with participants and clinicians determined the acceptability of the ePRO system to support patients and their clinical management during recovery.ResultsNinety-one patients were approached, of which 40 consented to participate (27 male, mean age 64?years). Symptom-report response rates were high (range 63-100%). Of 197 ePRO completions analysed, 76 (39%) triggered self-management advice, 72 (36%) trigged advice to contact a clinician, 9 (5%) triggered a clinician alert and 40 (20%) did not require advice. Participants found the ePRO system reassuring, providing timely information and advice relevant to supporting their recovery. Clinicians regarded the system as a useful adjunct to usual care, by signposting patients to seek appropriate help and enhancing their understanding of patients' experiences during recovery.ConclusionUse of the ePRO system for the real-time, remote monitoring of symptoms in patients recovering from cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery is feasible and acceptable. A definitive randomised controlled trial is needed to evaluate the impact of the system on patients' wellbeing after hospital discharge.

Project description:BackgroundSymptom monitoring interventions enhance patient outcomes, including quality of life (QoL), health care utilization, and survival, but it remains unclear whether older and younger patients with cancer derive similar benefits. We explored whether age moderates the improved outcomes seen with an outpatient electronic symptom monitoring intervention.Patients and methodsWe carried out a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of 766 patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors. Patients received an electronic symptom monitoring intervention integrated with oncology care or usual oncology care alone. The intervention consisted of patients reporting their symptoms, which were provided to their physicians at clinic visits, and nurses receiving alerts for severe/worsening symptoms. We used regression models to determine whether age (older or younger than 70 years) moderated the effects of the intervention on QoL (EuroQol EQ-5D), emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival outcomes.ResultsEnrollment rates for younger (589/777 = 75.8%) and older (177/230 = 77.0%) patients did not differ. Older patients (median age = 75 years, range 70-91 years) were more likely to have an education level of high school or less (26.6% versus 20.9%, P = 0.029) and to be computer inexperienced (50.3% versus 23.4%, P < 0.001) compared with younger patients (median age = 58 years, range 26-69 years). Younger patients receiving the symptom monitoring intervention experienced lower risk of ER visits [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74, P = 0.011] and improved survival (HR = 0.76, P = 0.011) compared with younger patients receiving usual care. However, older patients did not experience significantly lower risk of ER visits (HR = 0.90, P = 0.613) or improved survival (HR = 1.06, P = 0.753) with the intervention. We found no moderation effects based on age for QoL and risk of hospitalizations.ConclusionsAmong patients with advanced cancer, age moderated the effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention on the risk of ER visits and survival, but not QoL. Symptom monitoring interventions may need to be tailored to the unique needs of older adults with cancer.

Dataset Information

Electronic symptom monitoring in patients with metastatic lung cancer: a feasibility study.

Publications

Electronic symptom monitoring in patients with metastatic lung cancer: a feasibility study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets