Implementing a web-based system of screening for symptoms and needs using patient-reported outcomes in people with cancer

Are all cancer survivors included when using electronically administered patient reported outcomes in primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are being used frequently in clinical practice. PROs often serve several purposes, such as increasing patient involvement, assessing health status, and monitoring and improving the quality-of-care at an aggregated level. However, the lack of representative PRO-data may have implications for all these purposes. This study aims to assess the association of non-administration of (not sending an electronic invite to PRO) and non-response to (not responding to PRO) electronically administered PROs with social inequality in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting. Furthermore, it examines whether the workflows surrounding PRO have an impact on non-administration and non-response.

METHODS

This is a cross sectional study using routinely collected data from electronic health records and registers including cancer survivors (CSs) over 18 years booked for an initial consultation in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting using PROs for systematic health status assessment. During the study period two different PRO platforms were used, each associated with different workflows. Non-administration and non-response rates were calculated for sociodemographic characteristics for each PRO platform. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 1868 (platform 1) and 1446 (platform 2) CSCSs were booked for an initial consultation. Of these, 233 (12.5%) (platform 1) and 283 (19.6%) (platform 2) were not sent a PRO (non-administration). Among those who received a PRO, 157 (9.6%) on platform 1 and 140 (12.0%) on platform 2 did not respond (non-response). Non-administration of and non-response to PROs were significantly associated with lower socioeconomic status. Moreover, the workflows surrounding PROs seem to have an impact on non-inclusion in and non-response to PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-administration of and non-response to PROs in clinical practice is associated with determinants of social inequality. Clinical workflows and the PRO platforms used may potentially worsen this inequality. It is important to consider these implications when using PROs at both the individual and aggregated levels. A key aspect of implementing PROs in clinical practice is the ongoing focus on representativeness, including a focus on monitoring PRO administration and response.

Using Implementation Science Frameworks to Guide the Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are an evidence-based means of detecting symptoms earlier and improving patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of successful implementation in routine cancer care. We conducted a qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHODS

Participants were adult patients with cancer, their caregivers, or health care professionals involved in ePRO monitoring or processes. Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted using a semistructured approach informed by the CFIR. Data were analyzed deductively using the CFIR. Barriers were matched to theory-informed implementation strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool.

RESULTS

Thirty participants were interviewed: 22 females (73%), aged 31-70 years (28, 94%), comprising patients (n = 8), caregivers (n = 2), medical oncologists (n = 4), nurses (n = 4), hospital leaders (n = 6), clinic administrators (n = 2), pharmacists (n = 2), and information technology specialists (n = 2). Barriers pertaining to four CFIR domains were identified and several were novel, including the challenge of adapting ePROs for different anticancer treatments. Facilitators pertaining to all CFIR domains were identified, such as leveraging acceptability of remote care post-COVID-19 to drive implementation. Conducting consensus discussions with stakeholders to tailor ePROs to the local setting, identifying/preparing individual and group-level champions, and assessing readiness for change (including leveraging technological advances and increased confidence in using remote monitoring post-COVID-19) were the most frequently recommended implementation strategies.

CONCLUSION

The CFIR facilitated identification of known and novel barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care. Implementation strategies summarized in a conceptual framework will be used to codesign an ePRO symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy side effects.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Interest of Google Queries in Cancer Screening and Cancers: A Retrospective Study

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening programs and care for individuals with malignancies. We aimed to analyze the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the interest of Google users in cancers and their screenings. We collected data from Google Trends (GT) from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2021 worldwide for nine topics representing cancer screening and the HPV vaccine and for 33 topics representing malignancies. We performed a secular analysis comparing the prepandemic (2015-2019) and pandemic (2020-2021) period. We performed forecasting analysis on the prepandemic timeline to assess interest in the analyzed topics if the pandemic hadnot occurred.The actual interest in most of the analyzed topics was significantly lower than in the forecasted trend. Interest in 6 of the 9 topics representing cancer screening and 3 of the 33 topics representing cancer was higher during the pandemic than in the prepandemic period. The interest of Google users in cancer screenings increased in 2020-2021 compared to 2015-2019, but the growth was less dynamic than expected. The interest in many cancers during the pandemic was significantly lower than in the prepandemic period, especially during March and April 2020. The lower interest in cancers and their screenings may delay the diagnosis and worsen the long-term outcomes.