Clinical implementation of value based healthcare: Impact on outcomes for lung cancer patients

Quality of life after patient-initiated vs physician-initiated response to symptom monitoring: the SYMPRO-Lung trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies using patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) to monitor symptoms during and after (lung) cancer treatment used alerts that were sent to the health-care provider, although an approach in which patients receive alerts could be more clinically feasible. The primary aim of this study was to compare the effect of weekly PROM symptom monitoring via a reactive approach (patient receives alert) or active approach (health-care provider receives alert) with care as usual on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 15 weeks after start of treatment in lung cancer patients.

METHODS

The SYMPRO-Lung trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial using a stepped wedge design. Stage I-IV lung cancer patients in the reactive and active groups reported PROM symptoms weekly, which were linked to a common alerting algorithm. HRQOL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and after 15 weeks. Linear regression analyses and effect size estimates were used to assess mean QOL-C30 change scores between groups, accounting for confounding.

RESULTS

A total of 515 patients were included (160 active group, 89 reactive group, 266 control group). No differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive and active group (summary score: unstandardized beta [B] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.22 to 4.24, Cohen d effect size [ES] = 0.06; physical functioning: B = 0.25, 95% CI = -5.15 to 4.64, ES = 0.02). The combined intervention groups had statistically and clinically significantly better mean change scores on the summary score (B = 4.85, 95% CI = 1.96 to 7.73, ES = 0.57) and physical functioning (B = 7.00, 95% CI = 2.90 to 11.09, ES = 0.71) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly PRO symptom monitoring statistically and clinically significantly improves HRQOL in lung cancer patients. The logistically less intensive, reactive approach may be a better fit for implementation.

The implementation, use and impact of patient reported outcome measures in value-based healthcare programmes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) focuses on the value of patient outcomes and is achieved by ensuring resources already available are managed to realise the best possible individual and population health outcomes. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure the impact of illnesses from the patient perspective. We conducted a scoping review to understand how PROMs were implemented and used, and their impact in the context of VBHC.

METHODS

Arksey and O'Malley's overarching framework supplemented by principles from mixed-methods Framework Synthesis were used. CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar and reference lists were searched. An a priori data extraction framework was created using the review question and objectives as key domains against which to extract data. Mixed-methods data were organised, integrated and preserved in original format and reported for each domain.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included with 60,200 participants. Few studies reported a well-developed programme theory and we found little robust evidence of effect. PROMs were universally considered to have the potential to increase patient satisfaction with treatment and services, enhance patient awareness of symptoms and self-management, and improve health outcomes such as quality of life and global health status. Evidence is currently limited on how PROMs work and how best to optimally implement PROMs to achieve the target outcome. Implementation challenges commonly prevented the realisation of optimal outcomes and patients generally needed better and clearer communication about why PROMs were being given and how they could optimally be used to support their own self-management.

CONCLUSION

PROMSs have yet to demonstrate their full potential in a VBHC context. Optimal PROMs implementation is poorly understood by clinicians and patients. Future studies should explore different models of PROM implementation and use within VBHC programmes to understand what works best and why for each specific context, condition, and population.

Improving the Understanding and Managing of the Quality of Life of Patients With Lung Cancer With Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are essential to clinical practice and research. The growth of eHealth technologies has provided unprecedented opportunities to collect information systematically through ePROMs. Although they are widely used in scientific research, more evidence is needed to determine their use and implementation in daily clinical practice. For example, when diagnosed, patients with lung cancer are at an advanced stage of the disease. This entails tremendous burden because of high mortality and losses in the different dimensions of the human being. In this case, monitoring symptoms and other outcomes help improve the patient's quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

ePROMs offered unprecedented opportunities to collect information systematically. Our goal was to demonstrate that ePROMs are more useful in controlling patient symptoms, lung cancer, and overall survival than their alternatives, such as nonelectronic PROMs.

METHODS

This exploratory review considered articles published between 2017 and 2022 identified through searches of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We found 5097 articles; after removing the duplicates, we reduced them to 3315. After reading the summary, we were left with 56. Finally, after applying the exclusion criteria, we reviewed 12. The 5-step framework by Arksey and O'Malley was used to refine the initial search results with the following research questions: Do ePROMs help physician-patient communication? To what extent do they improve decision-making? Are institutions and their digitization policies barriers to or facilitators of this process? and What else is needed for routine implementation?

RESULTS

This review included 12 articles. We found that ePROMs are an integrative and facilitative communication tool, highlighting their importance in the relationship between palliative care and medical oncology. ePROMs help assess patient symptoms and functionality more accurately and facilitate clinical decision-making. In addition, it allows for more precise predictions of overall patient survival and the adverse effects of their treatments. The main institutional obstacles are the initial investment, which can be costly, and the data protection policy. However, enablers included better funding through the development of telemedicine, support from institutional leaders to overcome resistance to change, and transparent policies to ensure the safe and secure use of ePROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine collection of remote ePROMs is an effective and valuable strategy for providing real-time clinical feedback. In addition, it provides satisfaction to patients and professionals. Optimizing ePROMs in patients with lung cancer leads to a more accurate view of health outcomes and ensures quality patient follow-up. It also allows us to stratify patients based on their morbidity, creating specific follow-ups for their needs. However, data privacy and security are concerns when using ePROMs to ensure compliance with local entities. At least four barriers were identified: cost, complex programming within health systems, safety, and social and health literacy.

The Effects of Patient-Reported Outcome Screening on the Survival of People with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study examined the effects of the routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on the overall survival of adult patients with cancer. We included clinical trials and observational studies with a control group that compared PRO monitoring interventions in cancer clinical practice to usual care. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools were used. In total, six studies were included in the systematic review: two randomized trials, one population-based retrospectively matched cohort study, two pre−post with historical control studies and one non-randomized controlled trial. Half were multicenter, two were conducted in Europe, three were conducted in the USA and was conducted in Canada. Two studies considered any type of cancer, two were restricted to lung cancer and two were restricted to advanced forms of cancer. PRO screening was electronic in four of the six studies. The meta-analysis included all six studies (intervention = 130.094; control = 129.903). The pooled mortality outcome at 1 year was RR = 0.77 (95%CI 0.76−0.78) as determined by the common effect model and RR = 0.82 (95%CI 0.60−1.12; p = 0.16) as determined by the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was statistically significant (I2 = 73%; p < 0.01). The overall risk of bias was rated as moderate in five studies and serious in one study. This meta-analysis seemed to indicate the survival benefits of PRO screening. As routine PRO monitoring is often challenging, more robust evidence regarding the effects of PROs on mortality would support systematic applications.