It takes a (virtual) village: crowdsourcing measurement consensus to advance survivorship care planning

Research data management in health and biomedical citizen science: practices and prospects

Background

Public engagement in health and biomedical research is being influenced by the paradigm of citizen science. However, conventional health and biomedical research relies on sophisticated research data management tools and methods. Considering these, what contribution can citizen science make in this field of research? How can it follow research protocols and produce reliable results?

Objective

The aim of this article is to analyze research data management practices in existing biomedical citizen science studies, so as to provide insights for members of the public and of the research community considering this approach to research.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted on this topic to determine data management characteristics of health and bio medical citizen science research. From this review and related web searching, we chose five online platforms and a specific research project associated with each, to understand their research data management approaches and enablers.

Results

Health and biomedical citizen science platforms and projects are diverse in terms of types of work with data and data management activities that in themselves may have scientific merit. However, consistent approaches in the use of research data management models or practices seem lacking, or at least are not prevalent in the review.

Conclusions

There is potential for important data collection and analysis activities to be opaque or irreproducible in health and biomedical citizen science initiatives without the implementation of a research data management model that is transparent and accessible to team members and to external audiences. This situation might be improved with participatory development of standards that can be applied to diverse projects and platforms, across the research data life cycle.

Impact of Survivorship Care Plans and Planning on Breast, Colon, and Prostate Cancer Survivors in a Community Oncology Practice

With a growing number of cancer survivors, survivorship care plans (SCPs) are recommended to communicate information about late effects of treatment and follow-up care. Community oncology practices follow 85% of adult cancer survivors but report more difficulty in providing SCPs compared to academic centers. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of delivering SCPs in a community oncology practice by examining awareness of SCP receipt as well as how provision affects survivors' perception of care quality and of their condition. Survivors who accepted a SCP as standard of care were recruited from a community oncology practice in the Midwest and completed surveys prior to SCP provision (baseline) and 4 weeks later (follow-up). Within-survivor changes in knowledge of SCP receipt, satisfaction and perceived care coordination were assessed. Thirty cancer survivors (breast, colon, and prostate) completed the baseline survey, while 24 completed the follow-up survey (80% response rate). Participants reported receiving SCPs and treatment summaries more frequently at follow-up after receiving a SCP. At follow-up, there was a significant increase in survivor activation and involvement in care along with satisfaction of knowledge of care. Communication about and during SCP provision may need to be clearer: 34% of survivors could not correctly identify SCP receipt in this study. This may place these survivors at a disadvantage, if this leads to less awareness of important information regarding follow-up surveillance and management. Of those aware of SCP receipt, SCP provision had positive impacts in this small, short-term study.

Evaluation of a survivorship needs assessment planning tool for head and neck cancer survivor-caregiver dyads

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were to test the acceptability and feasibility of a survivorship needs assessment planning (SNAP) tool for head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors and caregivers, evaluate short-term changes in psychosocial outcomes after completing the SNAP session, and develop strategies for system refinement.

METHODS

We used a prospective one-group design and mixed methods with HNC survivors and caregivers (N = 25 dyads). Participants completed baseline and 6-week surveys before and after completing a SNAP clinic visit to assess psychosocial outcomes and acceptability. Intervention sessions included tablet-based needs assessments driving tailored care plans. Dyads' open-ended feedback and clinician interviews (N = 12) evaluated acceptability and feasibility.

RESULTS

SNAP data collection time burden and technology challenges were minimal, and care plans included messages (M = 19), educational materials (M = 13), and referrals (M = 4.5; 86% behavioral medicine, 77% nutrition, 65% physical therapy). Participants reported high satisfaction with the session and care plan, highlighting the key strengths of pulling complex medical information together and the focus on caregiver well-being, with multiple suggestions to facilitate clinic workflow. Depression and unmet needs decreased and survivorship knowledge increased significantly in survivors and caregivers (p < .05) over the 6-week period.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNAP tool is an innovative technology-based survivor-centered strategy to assess and manage needs in HNC survivors and caregivers. Results support its acceptability and ability to address dyads' needs; the tool merits further testing in a clinical trial.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Technology-enabled care planning may be a productive way to assess and address HNC dyads' dynamic needs after treatment.

Defining success factors to describe coordinated care in cancer

Providing coordinated care remains a challenge for cancer services globally. There is a lack of consensus in the literature about what constitutes successful coordinated care. This study aimed to define and prioritize a set of consensus-driven success factors that can lead to coordinated care. A mixed-methods approach was used that included literature review, a broad call for submissions from relevant stakeholders, and a priority-setting process based on a modified nominal group technique. Thirty articles that related to success factors in coordinated care were identified in the literature. Twenty submissions were received from a broad range of stakeholders. From these sources, a set of 20 success factors was derived. Seventy stakeholders attended a series of workshops across New South Wales, Australia, to review and prioritize these 20 success factors against significance and measurability. Clear consensus was reached on prioritizing two success factors linked to improving coordinated care from first presentation to diagnosis and ensuring that patients are routinely screened for physical and supportive care needs. Other highly ranked factors included the need for a comprehensive care plan and the identification of patients at higher risk for disjointed care. This study defines and prioritizes a set of success factors related to coordinated care in cancer. These success factors will be used to guide the development of interventions that target improving coordinated care as well as supporting the development of new funding models based on performance indicators derived from these factors.

The application of crowdsourcing approaches to cancer research: a systematic review

Crowdsourcing is "the practice of obtaining participants, services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people, especially via the Internet." (Ranard et al. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 29:187, 2014) Although crowdsourcing has been adopted in healthcare research and its potential for analyzing large datasets and obtaining rapid feedback has recently been recognized, no systematic reviews of crowdsourcing in cancer research have been conducted. Therefore, we sought to identify applications of and explore potential uses for crowdsourcing in cancer research. We conducted a systematic review of articles published between January 2005 and June 2016 on crowdsourcing in cancer research, using PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, PsychINFO, and Embase. Data from the 12 identified articles were summarized but not combined statistically. The studies addressed a range of cancers (e.g., breast, skin, gynecologic, colorectal, prostate). Eleven studies collected data on the Internet using web-based platforms; one recruited participants in a shopping mall using paper-and-pen data collection. Four studies used Amazon Mechanical Turk for recruiting and/or data collection. Study objectives comprised categorizing biopsy images (n = 6), assessing cancer knowledge (n = 3), refining a decision support system (n = 1), standardizing survivorship care-planning (n = 1), and designing a clinical trial (n = 1). Although one study demonstrated that "the wisdom of the crowd" (NCI Budget Fact Book, 2017) could not replace trained experts, five studies suggest that distributed human intelligence could approximate or support the work of trained experts. Despite limitations, crowdsourcing has the potential to improve the quality and speed of research while reducing costs. Longitudinal studies should confirm and refine these findings.