Dataset Information

The Effect of Collaborative Reviews of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on the Congruence of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Toxicity in Cancer Patients Receiving Systemic Therapy: Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) are a relatively novel form of data and have the potential to improve clinical practice for cancer patients. In this prospective, multicenter, observational clinical trial, efforts were made to demonstrate the reliability of patient-reported symptoms.

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to assess the level of agreement κ between symptom ratings by physicians and patients via a shared review process in order to determine the future reliability and utility of self-reported electronic symptom monitoring.

Methods

Patients receiving systemic therapy in a (neo-)adjuvant or noncurative intention setting captured ePRO for 52 symptoms over an observational period of 90 days. At 3-week intervals, randomly selected symptoms were reviewed between the patient and physician for congruency on severity of the grading of adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE). The patient-physician agreement for the symptom review was assessed via Cohen kappa (κ), through which the interrater reliability was calculated. Chi-square tests were used to determine whether the patient-reported outcome was different among symptoms, types of cancer, demographics, and physicians' experience.

Results

Among the 181 patients (158 women and 23 men; median age 54.4 years), there was a fair scoring agreement (κ=0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.33) for symptoms that were entered 2 to 4 weeks before the intended review (first rating) and a moderate agreement (κ=0.41; 95% CI 0.34-0.48) for symptoms that were entered within 1 week of the intended review (second rating). However, the level of agreement increased from moderate (first rating, κ=0.43) to substantial (second rating, κ=0.68) for common symptoms of pain, fever, diarrhea, obstipation, nausea, vomiting, and stomatitis. Similar congruency levels of ratings were found for the most frequently entered symptoms (first rating: κ=0.42; second rating: κ=0.65). The symptom with the lowest agreement was hair loss (κ=-0.05). With regard to the latency of symptom entry into the review, hardly any difference was demonstrated between symptoms that were entered from days 1 to 3 and from days 4 to 7 before the intended review (κ=0.40 vs κ=0.39, respectively). In contrast, for symptoms that were entered 15 to 21 days before the intended review, no congruency was demonstrated (κ=-0.15). Congruency levels seemed to be unrelated to the type of cancer, demographics, and physicians' review experience.

Conclusions

The shared monitoring and review of symptoms between patients and clinicians has the potential to improve the understanding of patient self-reporting. Our data indicate that the integration of ePRO into oncological clinical research and continuous clinical practice provides reliable information for self-empowerment and the timely intervention of symptoms.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03578731; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03578731.

SUBMITTER: Trojan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8380582 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital monitoring of treatment-related symptoms and self-reported patient outcomes is important for the quality of care among cancer patients. As mobile devices are ubiquitous nowadays, the collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) is gaining momentum. So far, data are lacking on the modalities that contribute to the quantity and quality of ePROs.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to compare the utilization of two versions of a subsequently employed mobile app for electronic monitoring of PROs and to test our hypothesis that a shared review of symptoms in patient-physician collaboration has an impact on the number of data entries.MethodsThe Consilium Care app engages cancer patients to standardize reporting of well-being and treatment-related symptoms in outpatient settings. For descriptive comparison of the utilization of two slightly different app versions, data were obtained from an early breast cancer trial (version 1 of the app, n=86) and an ongoing study including patients with advanced disease (version 2 of the app, n=106). In both app versions, patients and doctors were allowed to share the information from data entries during consultations. Version 2 of the app, however, randomly selected symptoms that required a detailed and shared regular patient-doctor review in order to focus on the collection and appropriate interpretation regarding awareness and guidance for severity grading. The numbers and types of symptom entries, satisfaction with both app versions, and patients' perceived effects during consultations were included for analysis.ResultsSymptom severity grading was performed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) using a horizontal slider and was indicated in descriptive terminology in both apps, while a graphical display facilitated the illustration of symptom history charts. In total, 192 patients electronically reported 11,437 data entries on well-being and 33,380 data entries on individual symptoms. Overall, 628 (of 872 intended) requested patient-doctor symptom reviews were performed in version 2 of the app. Both the amount of data entries per patient and day for well-being (version 1 vs version 2: 0.3 vs 1.0; P<.001) and symptoms (version 1 vs version 2: 1.3 vs 1.9; P=.04) appeared significantly increased in version 2 of the app. Overall satisfaction with both app versions was high, although version 2 of the app was perceived to be more helpful in general.ConclusionsVersion 2 of the app showed much better results than version 1 of the app. A request for collaborative patient-doctor symptom review is likely to affect the number of digital symptom data entries. This app shows high potential to improve the patient-doctor experience.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02004496; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02004496 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03578731; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03578731.

Project description:BackgroundIn this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.ResultsPROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.ConclusionsThis paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.