ATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN THE DAILY PRACTICE IN CLINICAL ONCOLOGY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

Patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) have gained widespread support as a mechanism to improve healthcare quality. We aimed to map out key enablers and barriers influencing PROMs implementation strategies in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

An umbrella review was conducted to identify reviews exploring enablers and barriers related to the integration of PROMs in routine clinical practice from January 2000 to June 2023. Information on key enablers and barriers was extracted and summarised thematically according to the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

34 reviews met our criteria for inclusion. Identified reviews highlighted barriers such as limited PROMs awareness among clinicians and patients, perceived low value by clinicians and patients, PROMs that were too complex or difficult for patients to complete, poor usability of PROMs systems, delayed feedback of PROMs data, clinician concerns related to use of PROMs as a performance management tool, patient concerns regarding privacy and security, and resource constraints. Enablers encompassed phased implementation, professional training, stakeholder engagement prior to implementation, clear strategies and goals, 'change champions' to support PROMs implementation, systems to respond to issues raised by PROMs, and integration into patient pathways. No consensus favoured paper or electronic PROMs, yet offering both options to mitigate digital literacy bias and integrating PROMs into electronic health records emerged as important facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

The sustainable implementation of PROMs is a complex process that requires multicomponent organisational strategies covering training and guidance, necessary time and resources, roles and responsibilities, and consultation with patients and clinicians.

Baseline functioning scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 predict overall survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

A consensus has not been reached on the value of quality of life (QoL) as a prognostic factor for survival in gastrointestinal cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between functioning scales of the EORTC QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the overall survival (OS) in patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases, until February 7, 2023. The studies included were those that investigated the association between baseline QoL measured by the functioning scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 and OS in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. The prognostic capacity of QoL was calculated by pooling the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies' analyses reported by 22 eligible articles involving 11,609 patients were included. When compared with good parameters of QoL, poor global QoL (HR 1.81; 95% CI 1.53-2.13), physical functioning (HR 1.51; 95% CI 1.31-1.74), social functioning (HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.30-2.15), and role functioning scale (HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.20-1.29) were significantly associated with decreased OS. For each 10-point increase in QLQ-C30 parameters, the pooled HR of OS was 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.92) for global QoL, 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.92) for physical functioning, and 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.97) for role functioning. However, each 10-point increase in social, emotional, or cognitive functioning scale did not significantly predict OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline health-related QoL defined by the physical functioning or global QoL scale of EORTC QLQ-C30 significantly predicts OS in patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

Supportive Digital Health Service During Cancer Chemotherapy: Single-Arm Before-and-After Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Digital supportive cancer care is recommended to improve patient outcomes. A portal was designed and embedded within the electronic medical record and public health portal of Iceland, consisting of symptom and needs monitoring, educational material, and messaging.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess (1) portal feasibility (adoption, engagement, usability, and acceptability), (2) potential predictors of usability and acceptability, and (3) the potential impact of the portal on patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

This was a single-arm, before-and-after feasibility study at a university hospital among patients with cancer who were undergoing chemotherapy. Participation included filling out the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised (ESASr) weekly and the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT&PL) 3 times; reading educational material and messaging; and completing study questionnaires. Clinical and portal engagement data were collected from medical records. Data from patients were collected electronically at baseline and 7 to 10 days after the third chemotherapy round. Usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (score 0-100), and acceptability was assessed using a 35-item survey (score 1-5). Patient-reported outcome measures included ESASr and DT&PL; a single-item scale for quality of life, family support, and quality of care; and multi-item scales for health literacy (Brief Health Literacy Screener), health engagement (Patient Health Engagement Scale), self-care self-efficacy (Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale), symptom interference (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory), knowledge expectations (Hospital Patients' Knowledge Expectations), and received knowledge (Hospital Patients' Received Knowledge). Health care professionals were interviewed regarding portal feasibility.

RESULTS

The portal adoption rate was 72% (103/143), and the portal use rate was 76.7% (79/103) over a mean 8.6 (SD 2.7) weeks. The study completion rate was 67% (69/103). The combined completion rate of the ESASr and DT&PL was 78.4% (685/874). Patients received a mean 41 (SD 13) information leaflets; 33% (26/79) initiated messaging, 73% (58/79) received messages, and 85% (67/79) received follow-up phone calls. The mean System Usability Scale score was 72.3 (SD 14.7), indicating good usability. Usability was predicted by age (β=-.45), ESASr engagement (β=.5), symptom interference (β=.4), and received knowledge (β=.41). The mean acceptability score, 3.97 (SD 0.5), was above average and predicted by age (β=-.31), ESASr engagement (β=.37), symptom interference (β=.60), self-care self-efficacy (β=.37), and received knowledge (β=.41). ESASr scores improved for total symptom distress (P=.003; Cohen d=0.36), physical symptoms (P=.01; Cohen d=0.31), and emotional symptoms (P=.01; Cohen d=0.31). Daily symptom interference increased (P=.03; Cohen d=0.28), quality of life improved (P=.03; Cohen d=0.27) and health engagement (P=.006; Cohen d=0.35) improved, while knowledge expectations decreased (P≤.001; Cohen d=2.57). Health care professionals were positive toward the portal but called for clearer role delineation and follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the feasibility of a support portal and the results indicate the possibility of improving patient outcomes, but further developments are warranted.

Effects of Patient-Reported Outcome Tracking and Health Information Provision via Remote Patient Monitoring Software on Patient Outcomes in Oncology Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to 1) review the literature on the remote care model that uses remote patient monitoring software (RPMS) as key mechanisms in oncology care for symptom tracking and health information provision and (2) compare the remote care model to standard care in terms of health-related quality of life, symptom burden, health management self-efficacy, anxiety, and depression.

DATA SOURCES

The search was conducted on March 23, 2022, in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases.

RESULTS

The primary strategies for applying digital technology in remote care models are patient-reported outcomes (PRO) tracking and health information delivery. Common PRO measurements applied in the RPMS include quality of life, symptom burden, self-efficacy, anxiety, and depression. Nine randomized controlled trials testing seven RPMS interventions were examined. Compared to standard care, remote patient monitoring via RPMS was related to greater quality of life and lower physical symptom burden during cancer therapy. The RPMS incorporated into routine clinical care with nurses providing remote monitoring performed better on PRO than that not integrated.

CONCLUSION

The RPMS-based remote care model improves patient outcomes during cancer treatment, and it is not inferior to standard care until the RPMS function is more integrated with existing clinical care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses are well-positioned to engage patients in self-care skills via RPMS and can play a vital role in integrating such a model of remote patient care into routine care practices.