Feasibility of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment for cancer patients using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) in daily clinical practice

Implementation of electronic prospective surveillance models in cancer care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Electronic prospective surveillance models (ePSMs) for cancer rehabilitation include routine monitoring of the development of treatment toxicities and impairments via electronic patient-reported outcomes. Implementing ePSMs to address the knowledge-to-practice gap between the high incidence of impairments and low uptake of rehabilitation services is a top priority in cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to understand the state of the evidence concerning the implementation of ePSMs in oncology. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021. All articles were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Data regarding the implementation strategies, outcomes, and determinants were extracted. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the synthesis of the implementation strategies and outcomes, respectively. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided the synthesis of determinants based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process).

RESULTS

Of the 5122 records identified, 46 interventions met inclusion criteria. The common implementation strategies employed were "conduct educational meetings," "distribute educational materials," "change record systems," and "intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence." Feasibility and acceptability were the prominent outcomes used to assess implementation. The complexity, relative advantage, design quality, and packaging were major implementation determinants at the intervention level. Knowledge was key at the individual level. At the inner setting level, major determinants were the implementation climate and readiness for implementation. At the outer setting level, meeting the needs of patients was the primary determinant. Engaging various stakeholders was key at the process level.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive summary of what is known concerning the implementation of ePSMs. The results can inform future implementation and evaluation of ePSMs, including planning for key determinants, selecting implementation strategies, and considering outcomes alongside local contextual factors to guide the implementation process.

Financial toxicity among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study

Objectives

Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients experience greater financial toxicity than other cancer patients. Research on financial toxicity has concentrated on patients despite many informal caregivers sharing finances and reducing work hours to provide patient care. Thus, our pilot study: (1) assessed the feasibility of financial toxicity screening of HNC patients and their caregivers, and (2) described financial toxicity levels of HNC patients and their caregivers.

Methods

We surveyed English-speaking adult HNC patients initiating treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and their informal caregivers. This survey assessed demographics and financial toxicity through the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure (0-44 range; lower score indicates higher financial toxicity). Screening feasibility was defined as ≥50% consent rate and ≥60% data completion rate.

Results

Our sample included 27 HNC patients and 9 caregivers. They both had slightly lower consent and completion rates than our goals. Patients reported a median COST score of 27 while caregivers reported a median COST score of 16. Approximately 25.9% of patients and 44.4% of caregivers reported high financial toxicity (COST < 17.5). Caregivers reported high concerns about their future financial health and their ability to control the amount of their financial contributions to the patient's care.

Conclusions

Patients and caregivers may require additional outreach approaches beyond emailed questionnaires to screen for their financial toxicity systematically. Future research is needed to replicate our results to determine whether differences in financial toxicity occur between patients and caregivers and identify areas of focus for interventions.

Level of evidence

IV.

COVID-19 Induced Environments, Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes and Problematic Behaviors: Evidence from Children with Syndromic Autism Spectrum Disorders

Between July 2020 and January 2021, 230 principal caregivers completed a questionnaire to measure proxy-assessed health-related quality of life outcomes (HRQoL), behavioral outcomes in children with syndromic autism spectrum disorders and COVID-19 induced changes to lifestyle and environments. HRQoL and behavioral outcomes reported earlier during the pandemic were generally worse compared to those reported later. COVID-19 induced reduction to a caregiver's mental health appointments, and hours spent watching TV were associated with decreases in HRQoL and increased the likelihood of problematic behaviors. Increasing time outdoors and time away from digital devices were positively associated with HRQoL and behaviors and might protect children from COVID-19 induced restrictions.

Comparative evaluation of the health utilities index mark 3 and the short form 6D: evidence from an individual participant data meta-analysis of very preterm and very low birthweight adults

BACKGROUND

The most appropriate preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments for trials or research studies that ascertain the consequences of individuals born very preterm and/or low birthweight (VP/VLBW) are not known. Agreement between the HUI3 and SF-6D multi-attribute utility measures have not been previously investigated for VP/VLBW and normal birthweight or term-born controls. This study examined the agreement between the outputs of the HUI3 and SF-6D measures among adults born VP/VLBW and normal birthweight or term born controls.

METHODS

We used two prospective cohorts of individuals born VP/VLBW and controls contributing to the 'Research on European Children and Adults Born Preterm' (RECAP) consortium which assessed HRQoL using two preference-based measures. The combined dataset of individual participant data (IPD) included 407 adult VP/VLBW survivors and 367 controls, ranging in age from 18 to 26 years. Bland-Altman plots, intra-class correlation coefficients, and generalized linear mixed models in a one-step approach were used to examine agreement between the measures.

RESULTS

There was significant discordance between the HUI3 and SF-6D multi-attribute utility measures in the VP/VLBW sample, controls, and in the combined samples. Agreement between the HUI3 and SF-6D multi-attribute utility measures was weaker in controls compared with VP/VLBW individuals.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The HUI3 and SF-6D each provide unique information on different aspects of health status across the groups. The HUI3 better captures preterm-related changes to HRQoL in adulthood compared to SF-6D. Studies focused on measuring physical or cognitive aspects of health will likely benefit from using the HUI3 instead of the SF-6D, regardless of gestational age at birth and birthweight status.

Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Very Preterm or Very Low Birth Weight Adults: Evidence From an Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Assessment of health-related quality of life for individuals born very preterm and/or low birthweight (VP/VLBW) offers valuable complementary information alongside biomedical assessments. However, the impact of VP/VLBW status on health-related quality of life in adulthood is inconclusive. The objective of this study was to examine associations between VP/VLBW status and preference-based health-related quality-of-life outcomes in early adulthood.

METHODS

Individual participant data were obtained from five prospective cohorts of individuals born VP/VLBW and controls contributing to the 'Research on European Children and Adults Born Preterm' Consortium. The combined dataset included over 2100 adult VP/VLBW survivors with an age range of 18-29 years. The main exposure was defined as birth before 32 weeks' gestation (VP) and/or birth weight below 1500 g (VLBW). Outcome measures included multi-attribute utility scores generated by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and the Short Form 6D. Data were analysed using generalised linear mixed models in a one-step approach using fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

VP/VLBW status was associated with a significant difference in the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 multi-attribute utility score of - 0.06 (95% confidence interval - 0.08, - 0.04) in comparison to birth at term or at normal birthweight; this was not replicated for the Short Form 6D. Impacted functional domains included vision, ambulation, dexterity and cognition. VP/VLBW status was not associated with poorer emotional or social functioning, or increased pain.

CONCLUSIONS

VP/VLBW status is associated with lower overall health-related quality of life in early adulthood, particularly in terms of physical and cognitive functioning. Further studies that estimate the effects of VP/VLBW status on health-related quality-of-life outcomes in mid and late adulthood are needed.

Health insurance literacy among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study

Objective

Health insurance literacy interventions may reduce financial burden and its effects on cancer patients and their caregivers. However, little is known about the health insurance literacy levels of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and their caregivers. We assessed the feasibility of screening for health insurance literacy in a pilot study and described the health insurance literacy levels of HNC patients and their caregivers.

Methods

We administered a survey that assessed demographics and subjective and objective health insurance literacy to HNC patients and their caregivers. Subjective health insurance literacy was measured through the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (score range: 0-84). Objective health insurance literacy was measured through correct answers to a previously developed 10-question knowledge test. Due to a small sample size, inferential statistics were not used; we instead descriptively reported findings.

Results

The pilot included 48 HNC patients and 13 caregivers. About 44.4% of patients and 30.8% of caregivers demonstrated low health insurance literacy (HILM ≤60). On the 10-item knowledge test, patients had an average of 6.8 (SD: 2.3) correct responses and caregivers had 7.8 (SD: 1.1) correct responses. Calculating out-of-pocket costs for out-of-network services was challenging; only 9.5% of patients and 0% of caregivers answered correctly.

Conclusion

Additional outreach strategies may be needed to supplement screening for health insurance literacy. Areas of focus for interventions include improving understanding of how to calculate financial responsibility for health care services and filing an appeal for health insurance claim denial.

Level of Evidence

IV.

Impact of assessment frequency of patient-reported outcomes: an observational study using an eHealth platform in cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The evaluation of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in cancer has proven relevant positive clinical impact on patients' communication with healthcare professionals, decision-making for management, well-being, and overall survival. However, the optimal frequency of PRO assessment has yet to be defined. Based on the assumption that more frequent sampling would enhance accuracy, we aimed at identifying the optimal sampling frequency that does not miss clinically relevant insight.

METHODS

We used pilot data from 31 advanced cancer patients who completed once daily the 19-item MD Anderson Symptom Inventory at home. The resulting dataset allowed us to compare different PRO assessment frequencies to daily sampling, i.e., alternate days (q2d), every third day (q3d), or once a week (q1w). We evaluated the sampling frequencies for two main outcomes: average symptom intensity and identification of severe symptoms.

RESULTS

The majority of the differences between corresponding averages of daily data and those for q2d, q3d, and q1w datasets were close to 0, yet the extremes exceeded 5. Clinically meaningful differences, i.e., > 1, were observed in 0.76% of patient items for q2d, in 2.72% for q3d, and in 11.93% for q1w. Moreover, median values of missed instances of a severe symptom (i.e., > 6) were 14.6% for q2d, 27.8% for q3d, and 55.6% for q1w.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that in patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced cancer, increasing the density of PRO collection enhances the accuracy of PRO assessment to a clinically meaningful extent. This is valid for both computations of averages symptom burden and for the recognition of episodes of severe symptom intensity.

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

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