Dataset Information

Acceptance and Use of Home-Based Electronic Symptom Self-Reporting Systems in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Electronic symptom self-reporting systems (e-SRS) have been shown to improve symptoms and survival in patients with cancer. However, patient engagement in using e-SRS for voluntary symptom self-reporting is less optimal. Multiple factors can potentially affect patients' acceptance and engagement in using home-based e-SRS. However, such factors have not been fully explored in cancer populations.

Objective

The aim of this study is to understand the acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer and identify associated facilitators and barriers.

Methods

PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO (January 2010 to March 2020) were searched using a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords such as symptom self-reporting, electronic/technology, cancer, and their synonyms. Included studies focused on the use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer and their families. Studies on patients' use of e-SRS in clinical settings only were excluded. Of the 3740 papers retrieved, 33 were included in the final review. Factors associated with patient acceptance and use of e-SRS were extracted and synthesized.

Results

Most e-SRS were web based (22/33, 66%) or mobile app based (9/33, 27%). The e-SRS initial acceptance, represented by patient enrollment rates, ranged from 40% (22/55) to 100% (100/100). High e-SRS acceptance was rated by 69% (59/85) to 77.6% (337/434) of the patients after they used the system. The e-SRS use, measured by patients' response rates to questionnaires (ranging from 1596/3521, 45.33% to 92%) or system log-on rates (ranging from 4/12, 33% to 99/100, 99%), declined over time in general patterns. Few studies (n=7) reported e-SRS use beyond 6 months, with the response rates ranging from 62% (40/64) to 85.1% (541/636) and the log-on rates ranging from 63.6% (103/162) to 77% (49/64). The availability of compatible devices and technical support, interactive system features, information accessibility, privacy, questionnaire quality, patient physical/psychosocial status, and age were associated with patient acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS.

Conclusions

Acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer varied significantly across studies, as assessed by a variety of approaches. The lack of access to technology has remained a barrier to e-SRS adoption. Interactive system features and personalized questionnaires may increase patient engagement. More studies are needed to further understand patients' long-term use of home-based e-SRS behavior patterns to develop personalized interventions to support symptom self-management and self-reporting of patients with cancer for optimal health outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Cho Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7998328 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health (eHealth) tools are becoming increasingly popular for helping patients' self-manage chronic conditions. Little research, however, has examined the effect of patients using eHealth tools to self-report their medication management and use. Similarly, there is little evidence showing how eHealth tools might prompt patients and health care providers to make appropriate changes to medication use.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to determine the impact of patients' use of eHealth tools on self-reporting adverse effects and symptoms that promote changes to medication use. Related secondary outcomes were also evaluated.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from January 1, 2000, to April 25, 2018. Reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included articles from the literature search were also screened to identify relevant studies. Title, abstract, and full-text review as well as data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Due to high heterogeneity, results were not meta-analyzed and instead presented as a narrative synthesis.ResultsA total of 14 studies, including 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 open-label intervention, were included, from which 11 unique eHealth tools were identified. In addition, 14 RCTs found statistically significant increases in positive medication changes as a result of using eHealth tools, as did the single open-label study. Moreover, 8 RCTs found improvement in patient symptoms following eHealth tool use, especially in adolescent asthma patients. Furthermore, 3 RCTs showed that eHealth tools might improve patient self-efficacy and self-management of chronic disease. Little or no evidence was found to support the effectiveness of eHealth tools at improving medication recommendations and reconciliation by clinicians, medication-use behavior, health service utilization, adverse effects, quality of life, or patient satisfaction. eHealth tools with multifaceted functionalities and those allowing direct patient-provider communication may be more effective at improving patient self-management and self-efficacy.ConclusionsEvidence suggests that the use of eHealth tools may improve patient symptoms and lead to medication changes. Patients generally found eHealth tools useful in improving communication with health care providers. Moreover, health-related outcomes among frequent eHealth tool users improved in comparison with individuals who did not use eHealth tools frequently. Implementation issues such as poor patient engagement and poor clinician workflow integration were identified. More high-quality research is needed to explore how eHealth tools can be used to effectively manage use of medications to improve medication management and patient outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionAn increasing proportion of cancer surgeries are ambulatory procedures requiring a stay of 1 day or less in the hospital. Providing patients and their caregivers with ongoing, real-time support after discharge aids delivery of high-quality postoperative care in this new healthcare environment. Despite abundant evidence that patient self-reporting of symptoms improves quality of care, the most effective way to monitor and manage this self-reported information is not known.Methods and analysisThis is a two-armed randomised, controlled trial evaluating two approaches to the management of patient-reported data: (1) team monitoring, symptom monitoring by the clinical team, with nursing outreach if symptoms exceed normal limits, and (2) enhanced feedback, real-time feedback to patients about expected symptom severity, with patient-activated care as needed.Patients with breast, gynaecologic, urologic, and head and neck cancer undergoing ambulatory cancer surgery (n=2750) complete an electronic survey for up to 30 days after surgery that includes items from a validated instrument developed by the National Cancer Institute, the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Information provided to patients in the Enhanced Feedback group is procedure-specific and based on updated PRO-CTCAE data from previous patients. Qualitative interviews are also performed. The primary study outcomes assess unplanned emergency department visits and symptom-triggered interventions (eg, nursing calls and pain management referrals) within 30 days, and secondary outcomes assess the patient and caregiver experience (ie, patient engagement, patient anxiety and caregiver burden).Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Institutional Review Board at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The relationships between the study team and stakeholders will be leveraged to disseminate study findings. Findings will be relevant in designing future coordinated care models targeting improved healthcare quality and patient experience.Trial registration numberNCT03178045.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, the number of studies on electronic symptom reporting has increased greatly. However, the field is very heterogeneous: the choices of patient groups, health service innovations, and research targets seem to involve a broad range of foci. To move the field forward, it is necessary to build on work that has been done and direct further research to the areas holding most promise. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on electronic communication between patient and provider to improve health care service quality, presented in two parts. Part 2 investigates the methodological quality and effects of the RCTs, and demonstrates some promising benefits of electronic symptom reporting. OBJECTIVE: To give a comprehensive overview of the most mature part of this emerging field regarding (1) patient groups, (2) health service innovations, and (3) research targets relevant to electronic symptom reporting. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and IEEE Xplore for original studies presented in English-language articles published from 1990 to November 2011. Inclusion criteria were RCTs of interventions where patients or parents reported health information electronically to the health care system for health care purposes and were given feedback. RESULTS: Of 642 records identified, we included 32 articles representing 29 studies. The included articles were published from 2002, with 24 published during the last 5 years. The following five patient groups were represented: respiratory and lung diseases (12 studies), cancer (6), psychiatry (6), cardiovascular (3), and diabetes (1). In addition to these, 1 study had a mix of three groups. All included studies, except 1, focused on long-term conditions. We identified four categories of health service innovations: consultation support (7 studies), monitoring with clinician support (12), self-management with clinician support (9), and therapy (1). Most of the research (21/29, 72%) was conducted within four combinations: consultation support innovation in the cancer group (5/29, 17%), monitoring innovation in the respiratory and lung diseases group (8/29, 28%), and self-management innovations in psychiatry (4/29, 14%) and in the respiratory and lung diseases group (4/29, 14%). Research targets in the consultation support studies focused on increased patient centeredness, while monitoring and self-management mainly aimed at documenting health benefits. All except 1 study aiming for reduced health care costs were in the monitoring group. CONCLUSION: RCT-based research on electronic symptom reporting has developed enormously since 2002. Research including additional patient groups or new combinations of patient groups with the four identified health service innovations can be expected in the near future. We suggest that developing a generic model (not diagnosis specific) for electronic patient symptom reporting for long-term conditions may benefit the field.

Project description:BACKGROUND: We conducted in two parts a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on electronic symptom reporting between patients and providers to improve health care service quality. Part 1 reviewed the typology of patient groups, health service innovations, and research targets. Four innovation categories were identified: consultation support, monitoring with clinician support, self-management with clinician support, and therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of the RCTs, and summarize effects and benefits from the methodologically best studies. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and IEEE Xplore for original studies presented in English-language articles between 1990 and November 2011. Risk of bias and feasibility were judged according to the Cochrane recommendation, and theoretical evidence and preclinical testing were evaluated according to the Framework for Design and Evaluation of Complex Interventions to Improve Health. Three authors assessed the risk of bias and two authors extracted the effect data independently. Disagreement regarding bias assessment, extraction, and interpretation of results were resolved by consensus discussions. RESULTS: Of 642 records identified, we included 32 articles representing 29 studies. No articles fulfilled all quality requirements. All interventions were feasible to implement in a real-life setting, and theoretical evidence was provided for almost all studies. However, preclinical testing was reported in only a third of the articles. We judged three-quarters of the articles to have low risk for random sequence allocation and approximately half of the articles to have low risk for the following biases: allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Slightly more than one fifth of the articles were judged as low risk for blinding of outcome assessment. Only 1 article had low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. We excluded 12 articles showing high risk or unclear risk for both selective reporting and blinding of outcome assessment from the effect assessment. The authors' hypothesis was confirmed for 13 (65%) of the 20 remaining articles. Articles on self-management support were of higher quality, allowing us to assess effects in a larger proportion of studies. All except one self-management interventions were equally effective to or better than the control option. The self-management articles document substantial benefits for patients, and partly also for health professionals and the health care system. CONCLUSION: Electronic symptom reporting between patients and providers is an exciting area of development for health services. However, the research generally is of low quality. The field would benefit from increased focus on methods for conducting and reporting RCTs. It appears particularly important to improve blinding of outcome assessment and to precisely define primary outcomes to avoid selective reporting. Supporting self-management seems to be especially promising, but consultation support also shows encouraging results.