Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Breast Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

Adherence, clinical benefits, and adverse effects of endocrine therapies among women with nonmetastatic breast cancer in developing countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite significant advances in breast cancer control and survival with endocrine therapies (ETs), treatment utilization and outcomes in developing countries have not been adequately explored. This review evaluated ET adherence, potential benefits, and harms in populations across developing countries.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through August 2023 in five databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Global Health, and WHO Global Index Medicus. Retrieved records were screened to identify observational research presenting at least one outcome in women with nonmetastatic breast cancer in developing countries who received ET (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors). A random effects model was used to compute the rates of adherence, discontinuation, adverse events (AEs), disease progression, and death.

RESULTS

A total of 104 studies met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was low in most studies, and a large portion of the patients involved Asians. The overall heterogeneity between studies was partially attributed to variations in study design or outcome measurement method. Results showed a pooled adherence rate of 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67%-81%) and a discontinuation rate of 16% (95% CI, 10%-25%). Treatment side effects and young age consistently emerged as significant predictors of nonadherence. A wide range of AEs was identified in our analysis. The estimated average rates of cancer recurrence and mortality at 5-years were 16% and 8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study underscore suboptimal ET use in developing countries and provide comprehensive insights into treatment experiences in the real-world setting. Targeted strategies are warranted to enhance adherence and subsequently optimize treatment benefits.

Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Guided Single-Dose Partial Breast Irradiation: 5-Year Results of the Prospective Single-Arm ABLATIVE Trial

PURPOSE

Preoperative partial breast irradiation (PBI) can increase accuracy of target volume definition and decrease irradiated volumes compared with postoperative PBI. In the ABLATIVE trial (NCT02316561), 15 of 36 patients achieved pathologic complete response 6 to 8 months after preoperative PBI and breast-conserving surgery (BCS). We now present the 5-year results.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The ABLATIVE trial is a Dutch prospective cohort study conducted in 4 hospitals. Women aged ≥50 years with unifocal, nonlobular breast cancer, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, and a tumor negative sentinel node were treated between 2015 and 2018 with preoperative single-dose PBI followed by BCS after 6 or 8 months. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response. Secondary endpoints were annually evaluated oncological outcomes, toxicity, cosmetic outcome (assessed by patients and physicians), and quality of life.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were treated with BCS 6 (n = 15) and 8 (n = 21) months following PBI. Median tumor size was 13 mm (IQR 9-16 mm). After a median follow-up of 5.5 years (IQR, 5.1-6.0), 2 (6%) patients had ipsilateral breast events and 2 (6%) distant metastases. The 5-year overall survival was 94% (95% CI, 87-100). The 5-year cumulative incidence of clinician-reported grade 1/2 breast fibrosis and breast discomfort/pain were 94%/6% and 75%/6%, respectively. The proportion of patients (very) satisfied with the cosmetic results was 89% at baseline and 78% at 5 years. Cosmetic results evaluated using the BCCT.core software were excellent or good in all patients. The 4-year median global quality of life score was 83 (IQR, 67-92), similar to baseline (83; IQR, 75-83; P = .42).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative single-dose PBI and BCS may be an oncologically safe treatment with mild late toxicity and no decline in cosmetic results and quality of life during 5 years of follow-up. This means that preoperative instead of standard postoperative irradiation has the potential to challenge the current clinical practice.

The impact of age on physical functioning after treatment for breast cancer, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures: A systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review aims to explore the impact of age on physical functioning post-treatment for early-stage, locally advanced, or locally recurrent breast cancer, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), identify PROMs used and variations in physical functioning terms/labels.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EmBase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED were searched, along with relevant key journals and reference lists. Risk of bias (quality) assessment was conducted using a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Data was synthesised through tables and narrative.

RESULTS

28,207 titles were extracted from electronic databases, resulting in 44 studies with age sub-groups, and 120 without age sub-groups. Of those with findings on the impact of age, there was variability in the way findings were reported and 21 % found that age did not have a significant impact. However, 66 % of the studies found that with older age, physical functioning declined post-treatment. Comorbidities were associated with physical functioning declines. However, findings from sub-groups (breast cancer stage, treatment type and time post-treatment) lacked concordance. Twenty-eight types of PROM were used: the EORTC QLQ-C30 was most common (50.6 %), followed by the SF-36 (32.3 %). There were 145 terms/labels for physical functioning: 'physical functioning/function' was used most often (82.3 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings point towards an older age and comorbidities being associated with more physical functioning declines. However, it was not possible to determine if stage, treatment type and time since treatment had any influence. More consistent use of the terminology 'physical functioning/function' would aid future comparisons of study results.

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.

BREAST-Q REACT: Qualitative Assessment of the Design, Functionality, and Clinical Utility of a New Score Interpretation Tool

BACKGROUND

The BREAST-Q real-time engagement and communication tool (REACT) was developed to aid with BREAST-Q score interpretation and guide patient-centered care.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the perspectives of patients and providers on the design, functionality, and clinical utility of REACT and refine the REACT based on their recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted three patient focus groups with women who were at least 6 postoperative months from their postmastectomy breast reconstruction, and two provider focus groups with plastic surgeons, breast surgeons, and advanced practice providers. Focus groups were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 18 breast reconstruction patients and 14 providers participated in the focus groups. Themes identified by thematic analysis were organized into two categories: (1) design and functionality, and (2) clinical utility. On the design and functionality of REACT, four major themes were identified: visual appeal and usefulness; contextualizing results; ability to normalize patients' experiences, noting participants' concerns; and suggested modifications. On the clinical utility of REACT, three major themes were identified: potential to empower patients to communicate with their providers; increase patient and provider motivation to engage with the BREAST-Q; and effective integration into clinical workflow.

CONCLUSION

Patients and providers in this qualitative study indicated that with some modifications, REACT has a great potential to elevate the clinical utility of the BREAST-Q by enhancing patient-provider communication that can lead to patient-centered, clinically relevant action recommendations based on longitudinal BREAST-Q scores.

Spiritual Care Expectations Among Cancer and Noncancer Patients With Life-Threatening Illnesses

BACKGROUND

Spirituality is a core element in holistic nursing care. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the spiritual care expectations of cancer and noncancer patients with life-threatening illnesses.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify the spiritual care expectations of vulnerable patients with life-threatening illnesses.

INTERVENTIONS/METHODS

This study uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches, and data were collected from 232 patients. For quantitative data, we used the Nurse Spiritual Therapeutics Scale (NSTS), which comprises 20 items. Qualitative data were collected using an open-ended question. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent t tests, 1-way analysis of variance, and item and factor analysis. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

The mean score of spiritual care expectations ranged from 2.27 to 3.07. There was a significant difference in NSTS mean score between cancer and noncancer patients. In exploratory factor analysis, NSTS was extracted into 3 factors and items belonging to the 3 factors showed similarity between cancer and noncancer patients. Qualitative data using content analysis revealed the following 3 themes: "treat with respect," "religious support," and "comfort with presence." The 3 factors corresponded with 3 themes: factor I versus "treat with respect," factor II versus "religious ritual," and factor III versus "comfort with presence."

CONCLUSIONS

Spiritual care expectations of cancer and non-cancer patients with life-threatening illnesses were identified and the findings provide valuable data regarding the expectations of patients' spiritual care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Our findings emphasize integrating patient-reported outcomes with spiritual care to stimulate patient-centered care, thus promoting holistic palliative or end-of-life care.

The value of patient-reported experience in oncoplastic breast conservation following standardized assessment and shared-decision making. A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are emerging as a quality marker for breast cancer care provision. Patient-reported experience (PRE) is equally important, but challenges in qualitative research and documentation have resulted in limited data on oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS). This qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences of patients who underwent OPBCS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women who underwent OPBCS between 2015 and 2021 at the Breast Unit of Uppsala University Hospital were followed up longitudinally using PROs. All participants were invited to share their experiences beyond PROs through a "diary." Patients' experiences with care, pre- and postoperatively, and other insights and thoughts that they considered important were documented and analyzed. A narrative research methodology, along with thematic analysis, was employed.

RESULTS

Of the 122 women, 60 (49.2 %) desired to further elaborate on their experiences beyond PROs-related aspects. The most common themes included postoperative side effects, challenges responding to questionnaires, adverse effects of adjuvant treatment, external factors contributing to the preoperative and postoperative overall health status, and satisfaction with the surgery and medical staff. Specifically, 26.7 % of the respondents stated that they felt that PROs were not adequately specific and had further reflections.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients did not report different experiences depending on the operative technique. Their experience focused on the perception of wholeness and potential ambiguities in the PRO questionnaires. Documenting PRE is crucial, as it enables individualized assessment following breast cancer treatment, thereby strengthening patient-centered care.

Persistent Pain After Breast Cancer Treatment, an Underreported Burden for Breast Cancer Survivors

BACKGROUND

Many patients who have undergone surgery experience persistent pain after breast cancer treatment (PPBCT). These symptoms often remain unnoticed by treating physician(s), and the pathophysiology of PPBCT remains poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to determine prevalence of PPBCT and examine the association between PPBCT and various patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study enrolling patients with breast cancer treated at Máxima Medical Center between 2005 and 2016. PPBCT was defined as pain in the breast, anterior thorax, axilla, and/or medial upper arm that persists for at least 3 months after surgery. Tumor and treatment characteristics were derived from the Dutch Cancer Registry and electronic patient files.

RESULTS

Between February and March 2019, a questionnaire was sent to 2022 women, of whom 56.5% responded. Prevalence of PPBCT among the responders was 37.9%, with 50.8% reporting moderate to severe pain. Multivariable analyses showed that women with signs of anxiety, depression or a history of smoking had a higher risk of experiencing PPBCT. Women aged 70 years or older at diagnosis were significantly less likely to report PPBCT compared with younger women. No significant association was found between PPBCT and treatment characteristics, including type of axillary surgery and radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable percentage of patients with breast cancer experience PPBCT. Women with signs of anxiety or depression and women with a history of smoking are more likely to report PPBCT. Further research is required to understand the underlying etiology and to improve prevention and treatment strategies for PPBCT.

The effectiveness of personalised surveillance and aftercare in breast cancer follow-up: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Breast cancer follow-up (surveillance and aftercare) varies from one-size-fits-all to more personalised approaches. A systematic review was performed to get insight in existing evidence on (cost-)effectiveness of personalised follow-up.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane were searched between 01-01-2010 and 10-10-2022 (review registered in PROSPERO:CRD42022375770). The inclusion population comprised nonmetastatic breast cancer patients ≥ 18 years, after completing curative treatment. All intervention-control studies studying personalised surveillance and/or aftercare designed for use during the entire follow-up period were included. All review processes including risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers. Characteristics of included studies were described.

RESULTS

Overall, 3708 publications were identified, 64 full-text publications were read and 16 were included for data extraction. One study evaluated personalised surveillance. Various personalised aftercare interventions and outcomes were studied. Most common elements included in personalised aftercare plans were treatment summaries (75%), follow-up guidelines (56%), lists of available supportive care resources (38%) and PROs (25%). Control conditions mostly comprised usual care. Four out of seven (57%) studies reported improvements in quality of life following personalisation. Six studies (38%) found no personalisation effect, for multiple outcomes assessed (e.g. distress, satisfaction). One (6.3%) study was judged as low, four (25%) as high risk of bias and 11 (68.8%) as with concerns.

CONCLUSION

The included studies varied in interventions, measurement instruments and outcomes, making it impossible to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of personalised follow-up. There is a need for a definition of both personalised surveillance and aftercare, whereafter outcomes can be measured according to uniform standards.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (DESTINY-Breast02): patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In DESTINY-Breast02, patients with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer who received trastuzumab deruxtecan demonstrated superior progression-free and overall survival compared with those receiving treatment of physician's choice. We present the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and hospitalisation data.

METHODS

In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial conducted at 227 clinical sites globally, enrolled patients had to be aged 18 years or older with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer that had progressed on trastuzumab emtansine and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using block randomisation (block size of 3) to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan (5·4 mg/kg intravenously once every 21 days) or treatment of physician's choice by an independent biostatistician using an interactive web-based system. Patients and investigators remained unmasked to treatment. Treatment of physician's choice was either capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 orally twice per day on days 1-14) plus trastuzumab (8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 then 6 mg/kg once per day) or capecitabine (1000 mg/m2) plus lapatinib (1250 mg orally once per day on days 1-21), with a 21-day schedule. The primary endpoint, which was progression-free survival based on blinded independent central review, has previously been reported. PROs were assessed in the full analysis set (all patients randomly assigned to the study) using the oncology-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), breast cancer-specific EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Breast 45 (QLQ-BR45), and the generic HRQoL EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Analyses included change from baseline and time to definitive deterioration for PRO variables of interest and hospitalisation-related endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03523585, and is closed to recruitment.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 6, 2018, and Dec 31, 2020, 608 patients were randomly assigned to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan (n=406; two did not receive treatment) or treatment of physician's choice (n=202; seven did not receive treatment). Overall, 603 patients (99%) were female and five (<1%) were male. The median follow-up was 21·5 months (IQR 15·2-28·4) in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18·6 months (IQR 8·8-26·0) in the treatment of physician's choice group. Median treatment duration was 11·3 months (IQR 6·2-20·5) in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and approximately 4·5 months in the treatment of physician's choice group (4·4 months [IQR 2·5-8·7] with trastuzumab; 4·6 months [2·1-8·9] with capecitabine; and 4·5 months [2·1-10·6] with lapatinib). Baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS) scores were similar with trastuzumab deruxtecan (n=393) and treatment of physician's choice (n=187), and remained stable with no clinically meaningful change (defined as ≥10-point change from baseline) over time. Median time to definitive deterioration was delayed with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with treatment of physician's choice for the primary PRO variable EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS (14·1 months [95% CI 10·4-18·7] vs 5·9 months [4·3-7·9]; HR 0·5573 [0·4376-0·7099], p<0·0001) and all other prespecified PROs (EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales, EORTC QLQ-BR45 arm and breast symptoms, and EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale). Patient hospitalisation rates were similar in the trastuzumab deruxtecan (92 [23%] of 406) and treatment of physician's choice (41 [20%] of 202) groups; however, median time to hospitalisation was 133 days (IQR 56-237) with trastuzumab deruxtecan versus 83 days (30-152) with treatment of physician's choice.

INTERPRETATION

Overall, GHS and quality of life were maintained for both treatment groups, with prespecified PRO variables favouring trastuzumab deruxtecan over treatment of physician's choice, suggesting that despite a longer treatment duration, there was no detrimental impact on patient health-related quality of life with trastuzumab deruxtecan. When considered with efficacy and safety data from DESTINY-Breast02, these results support the overall benefit of trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine.

FUNDING

Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca.

Practical guide to implementing patient-reported outcome measures in gender-affirming care: evaluating acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility

OBJECTIVE

Assess acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the Practical Guide to Implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) from a sample of patients and healthcare professionals.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study conducted August-October 2023.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from a National Health Service (NHS) gender clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Patient participants seeking care and healthcare professionals working at an NHS gender clinic were eligible for participation. The PG-PROM-GAC was sent to participants via email for review.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Three validated tools to measure acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility were administered: the acceptability of intervention measure (AIM), intervention appropriateness measure (IAM) and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM). The percentage of participants indicating agreement or disagreement with items on the AIM, IAM and FIM was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 132 transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients (mean age, SD: 33, 14) and 13 gender-affirming healthcare professionals (mean age, SD: 43, 11) completed the AIM, IAM and FIM, representing a range of gender identities. The cumulative percentage of patients indicating agree or strongly agree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the patient-relevant strategies in the PG-PROM-GAC was over 50% for each item. The cumulative percentage of patients indicating disagree or strongly disagree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the PG-PROM-GAC was less than 20% for each item. The cumulative percentage of healthcare professionals indicating agree or strongly agree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the healthcare professional-relevant strategies in the PG-PROM-GAC was over 38% for each item. The cumulative percentage of healthcare professionals indicating disagree or strongly disagree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the PG-PROM-GAC was less than 15% for each item.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender-affirming healthcare professionals and TGD patients find the PG-PROM-GAC acceptable, appropriate and feasible. The PG-PROM-GAC is ready-to-use for clinicians, policy-makers and researchers committed to service improvement for gender-affirming care.

Developing feasible and acceptable strategies for integrating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in gender-affirming care: An implementation study

OBJECTIVE

Use CFIR guidance to create comprehensive, evidence-based, feasible, and acceptable gender-affirming care PROM implementation strategies.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

A 3-Phase participatory process was followed to design feasible and acceptable strategies for integrating PROMs in gender-affirming care. In Phase 1, barriers and enablers to PROM implementation for gender-affirming care were identified from a previous systematic review and our prior qualitative study. We used the CFIR-ERIC tool to match previously identified barriers and enablers with expert-endorsed implementation strategies. In Phase 2, implementation strategy outputs from CFIR-ERIC were organised according to cumulative percentage value. In Phase 3, gender-affirming care PROM implementation strategies underwent iterative refinement based on rounds of stakeholder feedback with seven patient and public partners and a gender-affirming healthcare professional.

RESULTS

The systematic review and qualitative study identified barriers and enablers to PROM implementation spanning all five CFIR domains, and 30 CFIR constructs. The top healthcare professional-relevant strategies to PROM implementation from the CFIR-ERIC output include: identifying and preparing implementation champions, collecting feedback on PROM implementation, and capturing and sharing local knowledge between clinics on implementation. Top patient-relevant strategies include: having educational material on PROMs, ensuring adaptability of PROMs, and collaborating with key local organisations who may be able to support patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study developed evidence-based, feasible, and acceptable strategies for integrating PROMs in gender-affirming care, representing evidence from a systematic review of 286 international articles, a qualitative study of 24 gender-affirming care patients and healthcare professionals, and iteration from 7 patient and public partners and a gender-affirming healthcare professional. The finalised strategies include patient- and healthcare professional-relevant strategies for implementing PROMs in gender-affirming care. Clinicians and researchers can select and tailor implementation strategies best applying to their gender-affirming care setting.

Psychosocial Distress Screening Among Interprofessional Palliative Care Teams: A Narrative Review

With increased need for palliative care and limited staffing resources, non-social workers are increasingly responsible for screening for urgent psychosocial distress. The National Consensus Project guidelines call for all palliative care team members to be competent in screening across domains. Yet, in contrast to an abundance of evidence-informed tools for palliative social work assessments, standardization for interprofessional psychosocial screening is lacking. This lack of standardized practice may lead to harmful disparities in care delivery. The purpose of this narrative review is to examine current literature on evidence-informed practices for psychosocial screening within palliative care. Google Scholar, a university Summon library search engine, and prominent palliative care journals were searched using the same phrases to locate articles for inclusion. Each article was reviewed and synthesized across common themes. Although an abundance of validated screening tools exists for outpatient oncology-specific settings, there is minimal guidance on psychosocial screening tools intended for specialty palliative care. The most oft-cited tools have been met with concern for validity across diverse palliative care populations and settings. Additional research is needed to operationalize and measure brief psychosocial screening tools that can be validated for use by interprofessional palliative care teams, a stepping-stone for increased equity in palliative care practice.

The advantages, disadvantages, threats, and opportunities of electronic patient-reported outcome systems in cancer: A systematic review

Objective

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems hold promise for revolutionizing communication between cancer patients and healthcare providers across various care settings. This systematic review explores the multifaceted landscape of ePROs in cancer care, encompassing their advantages, disadvantages, potential risks, and opportunities for improvement.

Methods

In our systematic review, we conducted a rigorous search in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, employing comprehensive medical subject heading terms for ePRO and cancer, with no date limitations up to 2024. Studies were critically appraised and thematically analyzed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, including considerations of advantages, disadvantages, opportunities, and threats.

Findings

Analyzing 85 articles revealed 69 themes categorized into four key areas. Advantages (n = 14) were dominated by themes like "improved quality of life and care." Disadvantages (n = 26) included "limited access and technical issues." Security concerns and lack of technical skills were prominent threats (n = 10). Opportunities (n = 19) highlighted advancements in symptom management and potential solutions for technical challenges.

Conclusion

This review emphasizes the crucial role of continuous exploration, integration, and innovation in ePRO systems for optimizing patient outcomes in cancer care. Beyond traditional clinical settings, ePROs hold promise for applications in survivorship, palliative care, and remote monitoring. By addressing existing limitations and capitalizing on opportunities, ePROs can empower patients, enhance communication, and ultimately improve care delivery across the entire cancer care spectrum.

Lessons Learned and Practice Pearls: Optimal Integration of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Medical Oncology Clinic

This editorial reviews the many opportunities and obstacles associated with ePRO integration in oncology

Microwave imaging for monitoring breast cancer treatment: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Microwave imaging has been proposed for medical applications, creating maps related to water content of tissues. Breast imaging has emerged as a key application because the signals can be coupled directly into the breast and experience limited attenuation in fatty tissues. While the literature contains reports of tumor detection with microwave approaches, there is limited exploration of treatment monitoring.

PURPOSE

This study aims to detect treatment-related changes in breast tissue with a low-resolution microwave scanner.

METHODS

Microwave scans of 15 patients undergoing treatment for early-stage breast cancer are collected at up to 4 time points: after surgery (baseline), 6 weeks after accelerated partial breast radiation, as well as 1 and 2 years post-treatment. Both the treated and untreated breast are scanned at each time point. The microwave scanner consists of planar transmit and receive arrays and uses signals from 0.1 to 10 GHz. The average microwave frequency properties (permittivity) are calculated for each scan to enable quantitative comparison. Baseline and 6-week results are analyzed with a two-way ANOVA with blocking.

RESULTS

Consistent properties are observed for the untreated breast over time, similar to a previous study. Comparison of the scans of the treated and untreated breast suggests increased properties related to treatment, particularly at baseline and 6-weeks following radiotherapy. Analysis of the average properties of the scans with ANOVA indicates statistically significant differences (p < 0.05 $p < 0.05$ ) in the treated and untreated breast at these time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Microwave imaging has the potential to track treatment-related changes in breast tissues.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Use of Electronic Medical Record Messaging Among Patients With Breast Cancer: A Quality Improvement Study

INTRODUCTION

Despite evidence that use of electronic medical record (EMR) messaging positively impacts patients with cancer, there is little research on utilization patterns. The objective of this study is to describe the use of EMR messaging among breast cancer patients so that future interventions may be developed and targeted appropriately.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sociodemographic and MyChart usage data were collected. Study eligibility included patients who completed a visit at an academic breast center and sent at least one message to a provider during the study period (May 2021-May 2022). Chi-square and t-tests were used to describe differences between users and nonusers of EMR messaging. ANOVA and chi-square were used to describe differences between race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

A total of 4069 patients with activated MyChart accounts were included in the analysis. About 3575 (87.9%) were messaging users and 494 (12.1%) were nonusers. The mean age of users was significantly lower compared to the nonusers (57.7 vs 61.2, P< .001). Compared to non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) (odds ratio [OR]: 0.38, CI [0.21, 0.37]) and Hispanic individuals (OR: 0.35, CI [0.22, 0.57]) were significantly less likely to use electronic messaging. There were statistically significant racial/ethnic differences in the types of messages sent among EMR users.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows disparate EMR messaging utilization based on age, race, and primary language. As the availability of patient portals and electronic messaging increase, it is important to understand the barriers that patients face so that they can be addressed.

Do cancer centres and palliative care wards routinely measure patients' quality of life? An international cross-sectional survey study

PURPOSE

Routinely assessing quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer is crucial for improving patient-centred cancer care. However, little is known about whether or how cancer centres assess QoL for clinical practice or for research purposes. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate if QoL data is collected and if so, how and for what purposes.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study among 32 cancer centres in Europe and Canada. Centre representatives identified persons who they judged to have sufficient insight into QoL data collections in their wards to complete the survey. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the information on QoL assessment and documentation.

RESULTS

There were 20 (62.5%) responding cancer centres. In total, 30 questionnaires were completed, of which 13 were completed for cancer wards and 17 for palliative care wards. We found that 23.1% and 38.5% of the cancer wards routinely assessed QoL among inpatients and outpatients with cancer, respectively, whereas, in palliative care wards, 52.9% assessed QoL for outpatients with cancer and 70.6% for the inpatients. Wide variabilities were observed between the cancer centres in how, how often, when and which instruments they used to assess QoL.

CONCLUSION

A sizable proportion of the cancer wards, especially, and palliative care wards apparently does not routinely assess patients' QoL, and we found wide variabilities between the cancer centres in how they do it. To promote routine assessment of patients' QoL, we proposed several actions, such as addressing barriers to implementing patient-reported outcome measures through innovative e-health platforms.

Evaluation of a short instrument for measuring health-related quality of life in oncological patients in routine care (HELP-6): an observational study

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes have not been sufficiently implemented into the routine care of cancer patients because the existing instruments are often too long and complex or not cancer-specific. The aim of this study is the determination of psychometric properties and item reduction of a newly developed health-related quality of life (HrQoL) questionnaire for use in oncological clinical routines.

Methods

This observational study with a repeated measurements design included oncological inpatients and outpatients. A total of 630 patients participated at the first point of measurement and 404 at the second point of measurement. To evaluate the instrument, we conducted hierarchical confirmative factor analyses and for further validation correlated the resulting factors with standardized and validated HrQoL measurements. Test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change were tested.

Results

The developed questionnaire "HELP-6" ("Hamburg Inventory for Measuring Quality of Life in Oncological Patients") has a six-factor structure and has moderate-to-good convergent validity (r= -0.25 --0.68). Test-retest reliability was moderate-to-good (r =0.56-0.81, p < 0.001). Indications for responsiveness to change were found for three dimensions. The final version of the questionnaire HELP-6 has six dimensions with one item each.

Conclusion

With the HELP-6 instrument for measuring HrQoL in cancer patients, we provide a short and practical patient-reported outcome instrument. Though responsiveness to change could not be confirmed for all dimensions in this study, the HELP-6 includes time-efficient completion and evaluation and is informative in relevant HrQoL dimensions of cancer patients. Therefore, the HELP-6 poses an important addition to inpatient and outpatient routine cancer care.

Trial registration

This study was registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/y7xce/), on 9 June 2018.

The acceptability of implementing patient-reported measures in routine maternity care: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported measures (PRMs) are becoming popular as they might influence clinical decisions, help to deliver patient-centered care, and improve health care quality. However, the limited knowledge and consensus about the acceptability of implementing PRMs in maternity care hinder their widespread use in clinical practice, and evidence-based recommendations are lacking. This systematic review aims to synthesize available evidence on the acceptability of implementing PRMs in routine maternity care.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Literature on the implementation of PRMs in maternity care was electronically searched in six databases (PsycARTICLES, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL), screened and selected for the topic of "acceptability". Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was used as the basic framework guiding data analysis and synthesis. Evidence was thematically analyzed and synthesized. Mixed Method Appraisal Tool and GRADE-CERQual approach were used to assess the quality of studies and evaluate the confidence in the review findings.

RESULTS

Overall, 4971 articles were screened. From 24 studies, we identified five themes regarding the acceptability of implementing PRMs in routine maternity care: (1) user's action and behavior, (2) stakeholders' attitudes, (3) perceived benefits, (4) perceived challenges and risks, and (5) stakeholders' preferences and suggestions on implementation. While pregnant and postpartum women, health professionals and other stakeholders involved in maternity care were generally positive about the implementation of PRMs in routine care and recognized the potential benefits (eg health improvement, women empowerment, care and services improvement and healthcare system advancement), they pointed out possible challenges and risks in answering PRMs questions, responding to answers, and setting up integrated information systems as well as suggested solutions in the aspects of PRMs data collection, follow-up care, and system-level management. The confidence in the review findings was moderate due to methodological limitations of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Available empirical evidence suggested that the use of PRMs in routine maternity care is acceptable among stakeholders involved in maternity care and the potential benefits of its integration in routine clinical practice to healthcare improvement has been recognized. However, possible challenges in data collection, follow-up care arrangement and system-level integration should be appropriately addressed.

The Adolescent and Young Adult Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB): A single-arm feasibility pilot study

PURPOSE

In this pilot study, we evaluated the feasibility of implementing the Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB)- an intervention to address the pervasive unmet needs of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) during cancer treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods single-arm feasibility pilot study of NA-SB at the North Carolina Basnight Cancer Hospital. Eligible participants were AYAs ages 18-39 in active cancer treatment. After receiving NA-SB, participants completed a postintervention survey assessing their perceptions of NA-SB. We interviewed participating providers to assess their implementation experiences.

RESULTS

On average, AYA participants (n = 26) rated NA-SB's feasibility as 4.5/5, its acceptability as 4.5/5, and its appropriateness as 4.4/5. 77% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that their needs were met in the study period.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study generated preliminary evidence to establish NA-SB's feasibility as well as proof of concept for the intervention as a viable approach for identifying and addressing AYAs' unmet needs.

How to make PROMs work: qualitative insights from leaders at United States hospitals with successful PROMs programs

PURPOSE

Elucidate facilitators, barriers, and key lessons learned regarding the implementation of system-wide clinical patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) programs among United States (US) healthcare leaders.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 US healthcare leaders, including chief-level executives, data directors, PROM directors, and department chairs involved in PROM implementation across seven diverse healthcare systems from February to June 2020. Transcripts were coded, evaluated for qualitative themes, and categorized according to the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR).

RESULTS

According to US hospital leaders with experience in existing clinical PROM programs, there are facilitators and barriers to implementation success in each CFIR domain. Allowing clinicians to select PROM measures and ensuring a user-friendly data platform (intervention); adapting data collection to patient home environments (outer setting); informing clinicians of the multi-faceted use of PROM data for research, clinical care, and business (inner setting); implementing PROM education earlier into clinician training (characteristics of individuals); and establishing specialty-agnostic PROM implementation teams (process) were among key facilitators to implementation success.

CONCLUSION

Leaders of geographically and clinically diverse PROM programs in the US identify common themes that facilitate successful implementation. Drivers of success depend on factors within and outside the clinical environment. These findings may serve to guide both establishing new PROM programs and refining existing PROM programs.

Women's experiences with using patient-reported outcome and experience measures in routine perinatal care in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into the experiences of women with completing and discussing patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM), and tailoring their care based on their outcomes.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Seven obstetric care networks in the Netherlands that implemented a set of patient-centred outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth (PCB set), published by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement.

PARTICIPANTS

All women, receiving the PROM and PREM questionnaires as part of their routine perinatal care, received an invitation for a survey (n=460) and an interview (n=16). The results of the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics; thematic inductive content analysis was applied on the data from open text answers and the interviews.

RESULTS

More than half of the survey participants (n=255) felt the need to discuss the outcomes of PROM and PREM with their care professionals. The time spent on completing questionnaires and the comprehensiveness of the questions was scored 'good' by most of the survey participants. From the interviews, four main themes were identified: content of the PROM and PREM questionnaires, application of these outcomes in perinatal care, discussing PREM and data capture tool. Important facilitators included awareness of health status, receiving personalised care based on their outcomes and the relevance of discussing PREM 6 months post partum. Barriers were found in insufficient information about the goal of PROM and PREM for individual care, technical problems in data capture tools and discrepancy between the questionnaire topics and the care pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that women found the PCB set an acceptable and useful instrument for symptom detection and personalised care up until 6 months post partum. This patient evaluation of the PCB set has several implications for practice regarding the questionnaire content, role of care professionals and congruity with care pathways.

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Preoperative Multimodal Mobile Health Assessment in Spine Surgery Candidates

BACKGROUND

Rapid growth in smartphone use has expanded opportunities to use mobile health (mHealth) technology to collect real-time patient-reported and objective biometric data. These data may have important implication for personalized treatments of degenerative spine disease. However, no large-scale study has examined the feasibility and acceptability of these methods in spine surgery patients.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a multimodal preoperative mHealth assessment in patients with degenerative spine disease.

METHODS

Adults undergoing elective spine surgery were provided with Fitbit trackers and sent preoperative ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) assessing pain, disability, mood, and catastrophizing 5 times daily for 3 weeks. Objective adherence rates and a subjective acceptability survey were used to evaluate feasibility of these methods.

RESULTS

The 77 included participants completed an average of 82 EMAs each, with an average completion rate of 86%. Younger age and chronic pulmonary disease were significantly associated with lower EMA adherence. Seventy-two (93%) participants completed Fitbit monitoring and wore the Fitbits for an average of 247 hours each. On average, participants wore the Fitbits for at least 12 hours per day for 15 days. Only worse mood scores were independently associated with lower Fitbit adherence. Most participants endorsed positive experiences with the study protocol, including 91% who said they would be willing to complete EMAs to improve their preoperative surgical guidance.

CONCLUSION

Spine fusion candidates successfully completed a preoperative multimodal mHealth assessment with high acceptability. The intensive longitudinal data collected may provide new insights that improve patient selection and treatment guidance.

Moving towards patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: implementation lessons from the BREAST-Q

PURPOSE

Longitudinal, routine utilization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical care has been challenging. The purpose of this study is to describe a quality improvement initiative to improve patient engagement with the BREAST-Q, a gold-standard PROM for breast reconstruction.

METHODS

In 2011, we implemented the BREAST-Q as part of routine care. In 2018, we began a quality improvement initiative to increase BREAST-Q patient participation. The BREAST-Q was administered at every clinic visit via an institutional patient portal or an in-clinic tablet; digital dashboard technologies were used to improve workflow integration, real-time accountability, and immediate data availability at clinic visits. High clinical staff engagement was encouraged by assigning "BREAST-Q Champions." BREAST-Q completion data and patient characteristics were examined to understand non-response to the assessment.

RESULTS

Following quality improvement, the average annual BREAST-Q completion rate increased from 42.8% in 2011-2017 to 87.6% in 2019, the last full year of our study period. High completion rates were maintained January-July 2020; however, a significantly larger proportion of BREAST-Qs were completed at home in 2020 versus the same period in 2019 (49.7 vs. 38.8%, p < 0.001), potentially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared with non-responders, responders were younger (49.7 vs. 52.2 years, p < 0.001), more likely to be white (76.9 vs. 73.6%, p < 0.001), and had private insurance (79.4 vs. 69.8%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our quality improvement initiative successfully increased routine completion of the BREAST-Q. Similar implementation techniques may prove beneficial at other institutions interested in incorporating PROMs into routine care.

Gov➔Value: How to combine reported quality experiences and patient-reported outcome measures. First results on vulvar cancer patients in an Italian Research Hospital

Introduction

Vulvar cancer (VC) accounts for <1% of cancers affecting the female gender. Clinical Pathways (CP) and Clinical Outcomes Monitoring are useful for providing high-quality care to these patients. However, it is essential to integrate them with the patient's perspective according to Value-Based Healthcare paradigms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are tools for assessing outcomes and experiences with health care from the patient's perspective. The aim of this paper is to collect and synthesize PROMs and main stakeholders' experience on the VC CP, according to a value-based approach.

Materials and methods

To select the most appropriate instrument, a review was conducted on the main databases and official websites of specific institutions and organizations. In the second phase, a 2-round Delphi survey was conducted to assess the Reported Experience Measures (REMs) tool. Questions were evaluated according to four criteria (general relevance, evidence-based, measurability, actionability) and included if strong agreement was reached. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was executed. Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega were computed. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to compare ratings between groups. Descriptive statistics were performed for both PROMs and REMs instruments.

Results

For PROMs assessment, EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was selected and administered to 28 patients. Global Health Status/Quality of Life and Functional Scales Scores were high or very high, while symptoms scale reported low or medium scores. The final REMs consists of 22 questions for professionals and 16 for patients and caregivers. It was administered to 22 patients, 11 caregivers, 5 physicians, 2 nurses and 1 clinical senior manager. PCA identified 4 components. Scale reliability was acceptable (α = 0.75 95% CI: 0.61-0.85; ω = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.82). A statistically significant difference between the patient/caregiver group and the professionals was found for items 8 (follow-up), 10 (perceived quality), 12 (safety), and 16 (climate) (p = 0.02; p = 0.03; p < 0.001; p < 0.001, respectively).

Discussion

PROMs could provide new ways of intercepting patients' needs and feedback, thus acting on them. The proposed REMs tool would allow to detect information not available elsewhere, which, through Audit and feedback strategies, could lead to enhancement of healthcare experience, according to a value-based approach.

Towards assessing the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses: most important items regarding prosthesis use in people with major unilateral upper limb absence-a Dutch national survey

PURPOSE

To determine which items regarding prosthesis use were considered most important by adults with major unilateral upper limb absence (ULA) and to develop a patient-reported outcome measure to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses: PUF-ULP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on a qualitative meta-synthesis combined with input from patients and clinicians a graphical diagram of 79 items related to prosthesis use was developed. Adults with ULA (N = 358; mean age = 55.4 ± 16.5 years; 52.0% male/40.8% female/7.3% unknown) selected their top-10 of most important items from this diagram. This study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register: NL7682.

RESULTS

Most selected items were "wearing comfort" (54.0% of cases), "grabbing, picking up, and holding" (34.3%), and "weight" (31.4%). All subpopulations (i.e. age, sex, origin of ULA, level of ULA, and prosthesis type), except multi-grip myoelectric hand prosthesis users (MHP), selected "wearing comfort" most. Nine items were included in the PUF-ULP: "wearing comfort," "functionality," "independence," "work, hobby, and household," "user-friendly," "life-like appearance," "phantom limb pain," "overuse complaints," and "reliability."

CONCLUSIONS

All prosthesis users, except MHP-users, considered wearing comfort most important, which might be of interest for future research and industry. The PUF-ULP can be used to reflect the match between users and their prostheses.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAll persons with upper limb absence, except multi-grip myoelectric hand prosthesis users, considered "wearing comfort" most important regarding prosthesis use, which highlights that prosthesis wearing comfort deserves more attention in future research to increase the value placed by the user on their upper limb prosthesis.Regarding prosthesis use, men considered "ease of control" more important compared to the overall population, while women considered "independence," "household," "life-like appearance," "overuse complaints," and "anonymity" more important.Persons with a mono- or multi-grip myoelectric upper limb prosthesis rated function-related items as more important compared to the overall population, while persons with a passive/cosmetic prosthesis rated comfort-related and appearance-related items as more important.The newly developed measurement tool, also called the PUF-ULP, provides a single score that represents the match between the user and their upper limb prosthesis.

An implementation study of electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes in inpatient radiation oncology

Purpose

Despite evidence for clinical benefits, recommendations in guidelines, and options for electronic data collection, routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is mostly not implemented in clinical practice. This study aimed to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic PRO (e-PRO) assessment in the clinical routine of an inpatient radiation oncology clinic.

Methods

The guideline- and evidence-based, stepwise approach of this single-center implementation study comprised preparatory analyses of current practice, selection of assessment instruments and times, development of staff training, and evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of the e-PRO assessment, as well as on-site support of the implementation. Process evaluation focused on potential clinical benefit (number of documented symptoms and supportive measures), feasibility and acceptance (patient contacts resulting in completion/non-completion of the e-PRO assessment, reasons for non-completion, preconditions, facilitators and barriers of implementation), and required resources (duration of patient contacts to explain/support the completion).

Results

Selection of instruments and assessment times resulted in initial assessment at admission (EORTC QLQ-C30, QSR 10), daily symptom monitoring (EORTC single items), and assessment at discharge (EORTC QLQ-C30). Recommendations for PRO-based clinical action and self-management advice for patients concerning nine core symptoms were developed. Staff training comprised group and face-to-face meetings and an additional e-learning course was developed. Analyses of clinical records showed that e-PRO assessment identified more symptoms followed by a higher number of supportive measures compared to records of patients without e-PRO assessment. Analysis of n = 1597 patient contacts resulted in n = 1355 (84.9%) completed e-PROs (initial assessment: n = 355, monitoring: n = 967, final assessment: n = 44) and n = 242 (15.2%) non-completions. Instructions or support to complete e-PROs took on average 5.5 ± 5.3 min per patient contact. The most challenging issue was the integration of the results in clinical practice.

Conclusion

E-PRO assessment in oncologic inpatient settings is acceptable for patients and can support symptom identification and the initiation of supportive measures. The challenge of making the “data actionable” within the clinical workflow and motivating clinical staff to use the results became evident.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00478-3.

Cancer patients’ perceptions regarding their symptoms and functioning are important as they can differ from a professional assessment. Patients’ perceptions and self-assessment can be collected via electronic devices. Thus, the clinical staff can see a graphic overview of individual disease-related burden. Despite studies indicating the benefit of this assessment for care and symptom management, it is not integrated into routine care so far. The aim of our study was, to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic patient-reported assessment in a radio-oncology inpatient clinic under “real-life” clinical conditions instead of study conditions. Patients could complete an electronic assessment at the beginning/end and during their treatment. Results indicate that electronic self-assessment can identify more symptoms than the assessment of physicians and nurses. Patients completing a self-assessment are more likely to receive supportive measures. The majority of 80–90% of patients were willing to complete a self-assessment. On average 5–6 min were needed to explain or support the completion. While the intervention was feasible and acceptable for patients, motivating clinical staff using its results was most challenging. The importance of technical support became evident.

Essential barriers and considerations for the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measures in oncological practice: contextualizing the results of a feasibility study with existing literature

Aim

Monitoring electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) can provide various benefits to cancer patients, such as enhanced quality of life, reduction of hospital admissions, and even prolonged survival. Furthermore, ePRO might offer significant benefits to patients under antineoplastic treatment in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. However, evidence on feasibility of ePRO in routine cancer care and barriers met in a real-life setting remains limited.

Subject and methods

We conducted a feasibility study among patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma currently under antineoplastic treatment. Patients filled out weekly ePRO questionnaires and were followed up for 6 months. In case of adverse events, an alert was sent to the clinic. We assessed uptake and adherence, as well as subjective perceptions of patients and clinic staff. A semi-structured literature review was conducted to contextualize results.

Results

Eleven patients were recruited and followed up for 6 months. Overall adherence was found at a high level and remained stable throughout the study period. Feedback from patients was positive; however, clinic staff expressed disappointment and frustration, criticising an increase of workload while not perceiving any benefit to the oncological treatment. Both findings were backed by evidence we found in literature.

Conclusions

Implementation of ePRO monitoring to routine cancer treatment seems to be feasible regarding patients' acceptance and compliance. However, integration of the tool into clinical workflow without increasing workload and deterring clinicians proves to be a major challenge.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-022-01767-3.

The predictive value of patient-reported outcomes on the impact of breast cancer treatment-related quality of life

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been widely used to measure breast cancer (BC) treatment outcomes. However, evidence is still limited on using routinely PROs to personalize treatment decision-making, including or not chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and radiotherapy. Using patient baseline PRO scores, we aimed to use PROs before treatment initiation to predict improvement or decline in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) due to treatment that they receive.

Methods

In two French cancer sites, women with non-metastatic BC completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and BREAST-Q questionnaires to assess their PROs at baseline and again at 6 months. The outcome measured was post-operative change in PROs with minimal important difference for QLQ-C30 domains. We performed multivariate ordinal logistic regression to estimate the incremental probability of post-operative PRO improvements and deteriorations depending upon treatment options and baseline HRQoL.

Results

One hundred twenty-seven women completed questionnaires. Chemotherapy had significant negative impacts on Global health status (GHS) and on physical and social functioning. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased patient fatigue scores after adjusting for clinical factors (p< 0.01 and p< 0.05, respectively). The incremental probability of GHS deteriorations for chemotherapy was +0.3, +0.5, and +0.34 for patients with baseline GHS scores of 40, 70, and 100, respectively. This showed that different pre-treatment PROs might predict differential effects of chemotherapy on women change in HRQoL.

Conclusion

Patients with different baseline PRO scores may experience dissimilar impacts from BC treatments on post-operative PROs in terms of improvements and deteriorations. Oncologists might decide to adapt the treatment option based on a given level of the negative impact. Future studies should concentrate on incorporating this information into routine clinical decision-making strategies to optimize the treatment benefit for patients.

Misconceiving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) as primarily a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool: perceptions of independent healthcare sector stakeholders in the UK

Background

The independent healthcare sector in the UK collects PROMs for several surgical procedures, but implementation has been challenging. We aimed to understand the enablers and barriers to PROMs implementation in the independent healthcare sector in the UK.

Method

Between January and May 2021, we remotely conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital consultants, hospital managers and other clinical staff using a topic guide developed from an implementation science framework called the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Results

We interviewed 6 hospital consultants, 5 hospital managers, and 3 other clinical staff (1 nurse and 2 physiotherapists) across 8 hospitals. Common barriers included: the perception that PROMs are predominantly a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool, absence of feedback mechanisms for PROMs data for clinicians, poor awareness of PROMs among healthcare professionals and the public, absence of direction or commitment from leadership, and limited support from hospital consultants. Common enablers included: regular feedback of PROMs data to clinicians, designating roles and responsibilities, formally embedding PROMs collection into patient pathways, and involvement of hospital consultants in developing strategies to improve PROMs uptake.

Conclusion

To support PROMs implementation, independent hospitals need to develop long-term organisational strategies that involve sustained leadership commitment, goals or targets, training opportunities to staff, and regular feedback of PROMs data at clinical or governance meetings. The primary purpose of PROMs needs to be reframed to independent healthcare sector stakeholders as a quality improvement tool rather than a reporting requirement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00511-5.

Use of Patient-Reported Data within the Acute Healthcare Context: A Scoping Review

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and patient satisfaction surveys provide important information on how care can be improved. However, data collection does not always translate to changes in practice or service delivery. This scoping review aimed to collect, map and report on the use of collected patient-reported data used within acute healthcare contexts for improvement to care or processes. Using JBI methods, an extensive search was undertaken of multiple health databases and trial registries for published and unpublished studies. The concepts of interest included the types and characteristics of published patient experience and PROMs research, with a specific focus on the ways in which data have been applied to clinical practice. Barriers and facilitators to the use of collected data were also explored. From 4057 records, 86 papers were included. Most research was undertaken in North America, Canada or the UK. The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems tool (HCAHPS) was used most frequently for measuring patient satisfaction. Where reported, data were applied to improve patient-centred care and utilization of health resources. Gaps in the use of patient data within hospital services are noticeable. Engaging management and improving staff capability are needed to overcome barriers to implementation.

The impact of implementing patient-reported measures in routine maternity care: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

While there is growing interest in applying patient-reported measures (PRMs) in clinical routine, limited collective evidence of the impact of PRMs hinder their widespread use in specific contexts, such as maternity care. Our objective was to synthesize existing emperical evidence on the impact of implementing PRMs in routine maternity care.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (version 2020). We electronically searched six databases for the literature on the implementation of PRMs in maternity care. A multi-level (woman, clinical, organizational, national and societal) analytic framework for analyzing and synthesizing emperically proven impacts of PRMs was developed. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess the confidence in the review findings and arguments. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021234501).

RESULTS

Overall, 4971 articles were screened. The emperical evidence, collected from 11 relevant studies, showed that the use of PRMs in routine maternity care could produce positive effects on clinical process (assessment and detection of health problems, clinical visit preparation, resource use, woman-professional communication, decision-making, woman-professional relationship, and care quality), and health behavior and outcomes (women's health and wellbeing, quality of life, health behavior, experiences and satisfaction with healthcare services), awareness, engagement and self-management of own health, and disclosure of health issues. The confidence in the review findings was low to moderate due to a limited number of studies, inadequate data and methodological limitations of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited emperical evidence available suggested that the use of PRMs may have positive effects at the individual health level and clinical process level. However, the evidence was not strong enough to provide policy recommendations on the use of PRMs in routine maternity care. This review revealed limitations of currently available research, such as lack of generalizability and narrow scopes in investigating impact. Efforts are needed to improve the quality of research on the use of PRMs in routine maternity care by widening the study population, including different types of PRMs, and considering the effects of PRMs at different levels and domains of healthcare.

Definition of a tool to assess shared decision-making (SDM) on women with breast cancer: A value-based approach

Background and Aims

In oncology, there is increasing talk of personalized treatment and shared decision-making (SDM), especially when multiple treatment options are available with different outcomes depending on patient preference. The present study aimed to define the set of main dimensions and relative tools to assess the Value brought to patients from a Breast Cancer's Clinical pathway structured according to a dynamic SDM framework.

Methods

Starting from our previous systematic review of the literature, a deep search of the main evidence-based and already validated questionnaires was carried out. In the second phase, to corroborate this grid, a Delphi survey was conducted to assess each questionnaire identified for each dimension, against the following seven value-based criteria: Clinical Benefit, Safety, Care Team Well Being, Patient Reported Outcomes Measures, Green Oncology, Impact on Health Budget, and Genomic Profile.

Results

The resulting 7-dimension questionnaire is composed of 72 questions. Of these, some quantitatively and objectively assess the evolution of the patient's disease state, whereas others aim to ask patients about their active involvement in decisions affecting them and to investigate whether they were free to explore their preferences. Furthermore, to frame the analyzed phenomenon at the right time, for each questionnaire section, the specific, evidence-based timing of administration is indicated.

Conclusion

The resulting questionnaire is validated in its entirety and it is composed of a set of questions and relative time point for data collections to assess the Value brought to patients undertaking a Breast Cancer's Clinical pathway, structured according to a dynamic SDM framework. It constitutes a quantitative instrument to integrate patient centeredness with a personalized perspective in the care management of women with breast cancer.

Determination of Oncologic Outcomes, Satisfaction, and Psychosocial Well-being in Patients with Breast Cancer after Oncoplastic and Conventional Breast Conserving Surgery

Background

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and surgery is necessary for its treatment. We aimed to determine the oncologic outcomes, satisfaction with breasts, and psychosocial well-being in the patients with breast cancer, after oncoplastic and conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS).

Method

The patients with breast cancer from Shahid Motahari Clinic affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran from December 2020 to December 2021 were allocated to two groups, one who had undergone BCS alone and the patients who had undergone oncoplastic BCS. For all the patients, demographic data, data about surgery, oncologic outcomes, wound complications, and BREAST-Q© questionnaire score were collected and compared between two groups.

Result

The mean age of the patients in the oncoplastic BCS and BCS group was 48.13±9.73 (median=48), and 50.01±8.47 (median=50) years, respectively. The mean score of psychosocial well-being was higher in the oncoplastic BCS group in comparison with BCS alone. (P-value< 0.0001). Also, the mean score of satisfaction with breast was higher among the oncoplastic BCS group in comparison with the BCS group (P-value< 0.0001).

Conclusion

Replacing traditional BCS with oncoplastic BCS does not adversely affect the oncologic results of surgery but improves the consequent psychosocial well-being and satisfaction in the patients.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Breast Cancer Surgery: Evidence Review and Tool Adaptation

The objective of this scoping review was to review survey instruments for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and provide recommendations to construct a tool for PROMs specifically for breast cancer patients who have undergone surgery, to overcome the limitations of existing validated tools. A total of 924 articles were screened. Nine articles were selected based on the eligibility criteria. We found that PROMs' data collection along with advancements in the treatment of breast cancer and the resultant improved clinical outcomes, there is a growing appreciation and focus on improving patients' quality of life (QoL). Previous studies have shown that the assessment of PROMs is linked to a positive effect on patients' symptoms of distress, quality of life, acceptance, and satisfaction. Several PROMs tools have been validated for use in cancer survivors. However, it is unclear whether existing tools are appropriate for use in breast cancer patients who have undergone surgical treatment. Hence, we conducted a scoping review. Following a review of the current PROM related to breast cancer and the necessity to build specialized PROMs related to the outcomes of breast cancer surgery, we provide recommendations for the development of a comprehensive tool to overcome the limitations of existing PROMs tools.

Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability

BACKGROUND

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) engage patients in co-evaluation of their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability of a PROM survey for elective surgery.

METHODS

We sampled patients with a broad range of elective surgeries from four major Australian hospitals to evaluate (1) feasibility of the technology used to implement the PROMs across geographically dispersed sites, (2) response rates for automated short message service (SMS) versus email survey delivery formats, (3) the degree of recovery at one and four weeks post-surgery as measured by the Quality of Recovery 15 Item PROM (QoR-15), and (4) patient acceptability of PROMS based on survey and focus group results. Feasibility and acceptability recommendations were then co-designed with stakeholders, based on the data.

RESULTS

Over three months there were 5985 surveys responses from 20,052 surveys (30% response rate). Feasibility testing revealed minor and infrequent technical difficulties in automated email and SMS administration of PROMs prior to surgery. The response rate for the QoR-15 was 34.8% (n = 3108/8919) for SMS and 25.8% (n = 2877/11,133) for email. Mean QoR-15 scores were 122.1 (SD 25.2; n = 1021); 113.1 (SD 27.7; n = 1906) and 123.4 (SD 26.84; n = 1051) for pre-surgery and one and four weeks post-surgery, respectively. One week after surgery, 825 of the 1906 responses (43%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average), and at four weeks post-surgery, 676 of the 1051 responses (64%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average). The PROM survey was highly acceptable with 76% (n = 2830/3739) of patients rating 8/10 or above for acceptability. Fourteen patient driven recommendations were then co-developed.

CONCLUSION

Administering PROMS electronically for elective surgery hospital patients was feasible, acceptable and discriminated changes in surgical recovery over time. Patient co-design and involvement provided innovative and practical solutions to implementation and new recommendations for implementation. Trial Registration and Ethical Approval ACTRN12621000298819 (Phase I and II) and ACTRN12621000969864 (Phase III). Ethics approval has been obtained from La Trobe University (Australia) Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC20479).

KEY POINTS

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) help to engage patients in understanding their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine how patients feel about completing a PROM survey before and after elective surgery, and to develop a set of recommendations on how to roll out the survey, based on patient feedback. We found that implementing an electronic PROM survey before and after elective surgery was relatively easy to do and was well accepted by patients. Consumer feedback throughout the project enabled co-design of innovative and practical solutions to PROM survey administration.

Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures in Perinatal Care to Guide Clinical Practice: Prospective Observational Study

Background

The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement has published a set of patient-centered outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth (PCB set), including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). To establish value-based pregnancy and childbirth care, the PCB set was implemented in the Netherlands, using the outcomes on the patient level for shared decision-making and on an aggregated level for quality improvement.

Objective

This study aims to report first outcomes, experiences, and practice insights of implementing the PCB set in clinical practice.

Methods

In total, 7 obstetric care networks across the Netherlands, each consisting of 1 or 2 hospitals and multiple community midwifery practices (ranging in number from 2 to 18), implemented the PROM and PREM domains of the PCB set as part of clinical routine. This observational study included all women participating in the clinical project. PROMs and PREMs were assessed with questionnaires at 5 time points: 2 during pregnancy and 3 post partum. Clinical threshold values (alerts) supported care professionals interpreting the answers, indicating possibly alarming outcomes per domain. Data collection took place from February 2020 to September 2021. Data analysis included missing (pattern) analysis, sum scores, alert rates, and sensitivity analysis.

Results

In total, 1923 questionnaires were collected across the 5 time points: 816 (42.43%) at T1 (first trimester), 793 (41.23%) at T2 (early third trimester), 125 (6.5%) at T3 (maternity week), 170 (8.84%) at T4 (6 weeks post partum), and 19 (1%) at T5 (6 months post partum). Of these, 84% (1615/1923) were filled out completely. Missing items per domain ranged from 0% to 13%, with the highest missing rates for depression, pain with intercourse, and experience with pain relief at birth. No notable missing patterns were found. For the PROM domains, relatively high alert rates were found both in pregnancy and post partum for incontinence (469/1798, 26.08%), pain with intercourse (229/1005, 22.79%), breastfeeding self-efficacy (175/765, 22.88%), and mother-child bonding (122/288, 42.36%). Regarding the PREM domains, the highest alert rates were found for birth experience (37/170, 21.76%), shared decision-making (101/982, 10.29%), and discussing pain relief ante partum (310/793, 39.09%). Some domains showed very little clinical variation; for example, role of the mother and satisfaction with care.

Conclusions

The PCB set is a useful tool to assess patient-reported outcomes and experiences that need to be addressed over the whole course of pregnancy and childbirth. Our results provide opportunities to improve and personalize perinatal care. Furthermore, we could propose several recommendations regarding methods and timeline of measurements based on our findings. This study supports the implementation of the PCB set in clinical practice, thereby advancing the transformation toward patient-centered, value-based health care for pregnancy and childbirth.

The Roadmap for Implementing Value-Based Healthcare in European University Hospitals-Consensus Report and Recommendations

OBJECTIVES

Value-based healthcare (VBHC) aims at improving patient outcomes while optimizing the use of hospitals' resources among medical personnel, administrations, and support services through an evidence-based, collaborative approach. In this article, we present a blueprint for the implementation of VBHC in hospitals, based on our experience as members of the European University Hospital Alliance.

METHODS

The European University Hospital Alliance is a consortium of 9 large hospitals in Europe and aims at increasing the quality and efficiency of care to ultimately drive better outcomes for patients.

RESULTS

The blueprint describes how to prepare hospitals for VBHC implementation; analyzes gaps, barriers, and facilitators; and explores the most effective ways to turn patient pathways into a process that results in high-value care. Using a patient-centric approach, we identified 4 core minimum components that must be established as cornerstones and 7 organizational enablers to waive the barriers to implementation and ensure sustainability.

CONCLUSION

The blueprint guides through pathway implementation and establishment of key performance indicators in 6 phases, which hospitals can tailor to their current status on their way to implement VBHC.

A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) applications promise great added value for improving symptom management and health-related quality of life. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the collection and use of ePROs for cancer survivorship care, with an emphasis on ePRO-symptom monitoring. It offers many different perspectives from research settings, while current implementation in routine care is ongoing. ePRO collection optimizes survivorship care by providing insight into the patients' well-being and prioritizing their unmet needs during the whole trajectory from diagnosis to end-of-life. ePRO-symptom monitoring can contribute to timely health risk detection and subsequently allow earlier intervention. Detection is optimized by automatically generated alerts that vary from simple to complex and multilayered. Using ePRO-symptoms during in-hospital consultation enhances the patients' conversation with the health care provider before making informed decisions about treatments, other interventions, or self-management. ePRO(-symptoms) entail specific implementation issues and complementary ethics considerations. The latter is due to privacy concerns, digital divide, and scarcity of adequately representative data for particular groups of patients.

Patient reported outcomes in oncology: changing perspectives-a systematic review

In public health context, oncology is associated with severe negative impact on patients and on their relatives’ quality of life. Over the last decades, survival has remained at 50% worldwide for some tumor locations. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) assessment and, the corresponding use in clinical practice, help establishing patient individualized profiling involving caregivers. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine critical success factors for PROs assessment in daily clinical oncology practice. Additionally, we investigated how PROs collection can change oncology perspectives for patients and caregivers. According to PRISMA guidelines, 83 studies were included in this systematic review, whether related with implementation in daily clinical practice or associated with its use in oncology. PROs assessment gathers multi-professional teams, biomedical and clinical expertise, patients, families and caregivers. Institutional involvement, first line for caregiver’s adherence, team continuous formation, encompassing training and support, design of clear workflows, continuous monitoring, and data analysis are crucial for implementation. PROs measures are decisive in oncology. Several items were improved, including caregiver–patient–physician communication, patient risk groups identification, unmet problems and needs detection, disease course and treatment tracking, prognostic markers, cost-effectiveness measurement and comfort/support provision for both patients and caregivers. Routine assessment and implementation of PROs in clinical practice are a major challenge and a paradigm transformation for future.

Liquid biopsies and patient-reported outcome measures for integrative monitoring of patients with early-stage breast cancer: a study protocol for the longitudinal observational Prospective Breast Cancer Biobanking (PBCB) study

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is still the most common malignancy among women worldwide. The Prospective Breast Cancer Biobank (PBCB) collects blood and urine from patients with breast cancer every 6 or 12 months for 11 years from 2011 to 2030 at two university hospitals in Western Norway. The project aims to identify new biomarkers that enable detection of systemic recurrences at the molecular level. As blood represents the biological interface between the primary tumour, the microenvironment and distant metastases, liquid biopsies represent the ideal medium to monitor the patient's cancer biology for identification of patients at high risk of relapse and for early detection systemic relapse.Including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) allows for a vast number of possibilities to compare PROM data with biological information, enabling the study of fatigue and Quality of Life in patients with breast cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A total of 1455 patients with early-stage breast cancer are enrolled in the PBCB study, which has a one-armed prospective observational design. Participants consent to contribute liquid biopsies (i.e., peripheral blood and urine samples) every 6 or 12 months for 11 years. The liquid biopsies are the basis for detection of circulating tumour cells, circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA), exosomal micro-RNA (miRNA), miRNA in Tumour Educated Platelet and metabolomic profiles. In addition, participants respond to 10 PROM questionnaires collected annually. Moreover, a control group comprising 200 women without cancer aged 25-70 years will provide the same data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The general research biobank PBCB was approved by the Ministry of Health and Care Services in 2007, by the Regional Ethics Committee (REK) in 2010 (#2010/1957). The PROM (#2011/2161) and the biomarker study PerMoBreCan (#2015/2010) were approved by REK in 2011 and 2015 respectively. Results will be published in international peer reviewed journals. Deidentified data will be accessible on request.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04488614.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement in Radiation Oncology: Interpretation of Individual Scores and Change over Time in Clinical Practice

Tools for measuring patients’ perceived health and quality of life, such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), inform clinical decisions for patients requiring radiation therapy. However, there may be inconsistencies in how patients interpret and respond to PROMs due to cultural, environmental, personal, or experiential factors. Differential item functioning (DIF) and response shift (RS) refer to differences in the meaning of PROMs between patients or over time (respectively). DIF and RS can threaten the accurate interpretation and use of PROMs, potentially resulting in erroneous conclusions about effectiveness, and flawed individual-level clinical decision-making. Given the empirical evidence of DIF and RS, we aim to review clinical implications and solutions for addressing DIF and RS by providing vignettes from collaborative examinations with workshop participants, as well as the literature. By making these methodological concepts accessible and relevant, for practice, clinicians may feel more confident to ask clarifying questions of patients when PROM scores and the contextual patient information do not align. PROM scores need to be interpreted via dialogue with the patient to avoid misinterpretation due to DIF and RS, which could diminish patient–clinician communication and impede shared decision-making. This work is part of an interdisciplinary knowledge translation initiative focused on the interpretation of PROM scores by clinically-oriented audiences.

Next Step for Global Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology: A Core Patient-Centered Outcome Set

The relatively small number of cancers in the adolescent and young adult (AYA) age group, those aged 15-39 years, does not appropriately reflect the personal and societal costs of cancer in this population, as reflected in the potential years of life lost or saved, the decreased productivity and health-related quality of life due to the impact of the disease during formative years, and long-term complications or disabilities. Improvements in care and outcomes for AYAs with cancer require collaboration among different stakeholders at different levels (patients, caregivers, health-care professionals, researchers, industry, and policymakers). Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured globally in research and routine clinical practice-specifically for AYAs with cancer-with outcomes that are well defined based on the perspective of those who are affected and assessed with validated measures, is urgently required. A globally implemented COS for AYAs with cancer will facilitate better pooling of research data and the implementation of high-quality health-care registries, which by benchmarking not only nationally but also internationally, may ultimately improve the value of the care given to these underserved young cancer patients. We reflect on the need to develop a COS for AYAs with cancer, the arenas of application, and the challenges of implementing an age-specific COS in research and clinical practice.

Identifying breast cancer recurrence histories via patient-reported outcomes

PURPOSE

To test accuracy of patient self-report of breast cancer recurrence for enhancing standard population-based cancer registries that do not routinely collect cancer recurrence data despite the importance of this outcome.

METHODS

Potential research subjects were identified in the Breast Cancer Research Database (BCRD) of the Swedish Cancer Institute (SCI). The BCRD has collected data within 45 days of each medical encounter on new primary breast cancer patients receiving all or part of their initial care at SCI. Females diagnosed with a new primary breast cancer 2004-2016, Stages I-III, and alive at the time of study initiation (2018) were identified. Recurrent breast cancer patients were matched 1:1 to surviving non-recurrent patients by patient age, date of diagnosis, and single or multiple primary tumors. Consented research subjects were surveyed about their initial and subsequent diagnostic, therapeutic, and recurrent events. PRO survey responses were compared with BCRD information for each individual participant. Discrepancies were reviewed in medical records.

RESULTS

A matched sample of 88 recurrent and 88 non-recurrent patients were used in analyses. Respondents correctly identified the date of diagnosis of first primary breast cancer within 1 year 94% (165/176). Recurrence was reported by 97% (85/88) of recurrent patients. No recurrence was reported by 100% (88/88) of non-recurrent patients. Recurrence date within 1 year was correctly identified in 79% (67/85). Recurrence site was correctly identified in 82% (70/85). Medical record review of survey-registry discrepancies led to BCRD corrections in 4.5% (8/176) of cases.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Breast cancer patients can accurately report their disease characteristics, treatments, and recurrence history. Patient-reported information would enhance cancer registry data.

Implementing patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patients in the United States

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used increasingly in routine clinical care and inform policies, reimbursements, and quality improvement. Less is known regarding PRO implementation in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patient populations.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to identify studies of PRO implementation in diverse and underrepresented patient populations, elucidate representation of clinical specialties, assess implementation outcomes, and synthesize patient needs, concerns, and preferences.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched September 2021 for studies aiming to study PRO implementation in diverse and underrepresented patient populations within the United States. Studies were screened and data extracted by three independent reviewers. Implementation outcomes were assessed according to Proctor et al. taxonomy. A descriptive analysis of data was conducted.

RESULTS

The search yielded 8,687 records, and 28 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority were observational cohort studies (n = 21, 75%) and conducted in primary care (n = 10, 36%). Most studies included majority female (n = 19, 68%) and non-White populations (n = 15, 54%), while fewer reported socioeconomic (n = 11, 39%) or insurance status (n = 9, 32.1%). Most studies assessed implementation outcomes of feasibility (n = 27, 96%) and acceptability (n = 19, 68%); costs (n = 3, 11%), penetration (n = 1, 4%), and sustainability (n = 1, 4%) were infrequently assessed.

CONCLUSION

PRO implementation in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patient populations is generally feasible and acceptable. Research is lacking in key clinical specialties. Further work is needed to understand how health disparities drive PRO implementation outcomes.

Cancer treatment regimens and their impact on the patient-reported outcome measures health-related quality of life and perceived cognitive function

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Breast cancer can be a significant challenge for those affected. Knowledge of physical function, social-emotional challenges, and perceived cognitive function based on the cancer treatment regimens may help to inform adequate support.

METHODS

For this prospective observational pilot study, we collected data of seventy-nine women (mean age 54.6 ± 9.5 years) before (T0) and after (T1) initial breast cancer treatment. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive-Function (FACT-Cog) were used to collect data of four treatment subgroups: SCR = Surgery + Chemotherapy + Radiation Therapy; SC = Surgery + Chemotherapy; SR = Surgery + Radiation Therapy; S = Surgery. A mixed ANOVA and posthoc analysis (Tukey, Games-Howell) were used to detect interactions (group by time) and the main effect. A repeated-measures ANOVA displayed individual group differences (time).

RESULTS

Significant interaction showed more deterioration was experienced with SC and SCR than SR and S for FACT-B (p < 0.01) and FACT-Cog (p < 0.001). The longitudinal comparison between T0 and T1 indicated a significant group main effect on all subscales (p < 0.001) except for Emotional Well-Being. Significant reductions (p < 0.05) in FACT-B, (- 19%); FACT-Cog, (- 21%) with most pronounced effect in Physical Well-Being (- 30%), Functional Well-Being (- 20%), Breast Cancer Subscale (- 20%), Perceived Cognitive Impairments (- 18%) and Impact of Cognitive Impairments on Quality of Life (- 39%) were detected for SCR.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the extent of change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and perceived cognitive function (PCF) depends on the treatment regimen. Multidisciplinary support initiated early in breast cancer therapy is needed, especially for women undergoing combined cancer treatment. Routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology practice may increase the transparency of patients' perceived circumstances, leading to personalized and optimized acute and survivorship care.

Enhancing Patient-Centered Surgical Care With Mobile Health Technology

From smartphones or wearables to portable physiologic sensors and apps, healthcare is witnessing an exponential growth in mHealth-digital health tools used to support medical and surgical care, as well as public health. In surgery, there is interest in harnessing the capabilities of mHealth to improve the quality of patient-centered care delivery. Digitally delivered surveys have enhanced patient-reported outcome measurement and patient engagement throughout care. Wearable devices and sensors have allowed for the assessment of physical fitness before surgery and during recovery. Smartphone-based digital phenotyping has introduced novel methods of integrating multiple data streams (accelerometer, global positioning system, call and text logs) to create multidimensional digital health footprints for patients following surgery. Yet, with all the technological sophistication and 'big data' mHealth provides, widespread implementation has been elusive. Do clinicians and patients find these data valuable or clinically actionable? How can mHealth become integrated into the day-to-day workflows of surgical systems? Do these data represent opportunities to address disparities of care or worsen them? In this review, we discuss experiences and future opportunities to use mHealth to enhance patient-centered surgical care.