1
|
Khosravi M, Izadi R, Shojaei P, Delavari S. Strategies to promote patient-centeredness within the healthcare industry: A grey-based multicriteria decision making methods. J Eval Clin Pract 2024. [PMID: 38970257 DOI: 10.1111/jep.14070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2023] [Revised: 05/09/2024] [Accepted: 06/14/2024] [Indexed: 07/08/2024]
Abstract
RATIONALE The international policy agenda has recently advocated for the development of patient-centeredness in healthcare service delivery. Consequently, various stakeholders in the healthcare systems have expressed a vital need for identifying strategies and tools that can enhance patient-centeredness. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The objective of this paper was to prioritise and benchmark the strategies that can improve patient-centeredness in healthcare service delivery. METHOD We employed a multi-stage research scenario that consisted of two phases: a phase including of a scoping review to identify the current strategies to improve patient-centeredness (PC); And, a phase including of a multicriteria best-worst method to assign weights to PC principles, and a questionnaire administered to a sample of experts for benchmarking the strategies derived from the literature using the Grey Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC-G) method. RESULTS The most important principle of patient-centeredness was deemed to be access to care, while telehealth tools and Electronic Health Information Systems were respectively suggested as the most efficacious platforms for promoting patient-centeredness. CONCLUSION We recommend that administrators and policy makers in the healthcare industry prioritise the implementation and research of strategies such as telehealth tools and electronic health information systems to enhance access and patient-centeredness in the healthcare systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohsen Khosravi
- Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| | - Reyhane Izadi
- Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| | - Payam Shojaei
- Department of Management, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
| | - Sajad Delavari
- Health Human Resources Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
van Kessel R, Ranganathan S, Anderson M, McMillan B, Mossialos E. Exploring potential drivers of patient engagement with their health data through digital platforms: A scoping review. Int J Med Inform 2024; 189:105513. [PMID: 38851132 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105513] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2023] [Revised: 04/11/2024] [Accepted: 06/02/2024] [Indexed: 06/10/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient engagement when providing patient access to health data results from an interaction between the available tools and individual capabilities. The recent digital advancements of the healthcare field have altered the manifestation and importance of patient engagement. However, a comprehensive assessment of what factors contribute to patient engagement remain absent. In this review article, we synthesised the most frequently discussed factors that can foster patient engagement with their health data. METHODS A scoping review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant data were synthesized within 7 layers using a thematic analysis: (1) social and demographic factors, (2) patient ability factors, (3) patient motivation factors, (4) factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, (5) health system factors, (6) technological factors, and (7) policy factors. RESULTS We identified 5801 academic and 200 Gy literature records, and included 292 (4.83%) in this review. Overall, 44 factors that can affect patient engagement with their health data were extracted. We extracted 6 social and demographic factors, 6 patient ability factors, 12 patient motivation factors, 7 factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, 4 health system factors, 6 technological factors, and 3 policy factors. CONCLUSIONS Improving patient engagement with their health data enables the development of patient-centered healthcare, though it can also exacerbate existing inequities. While expanding patient access to health data is an important step towards fostering shared decision-making in healthcare and subsequently empowering patients, it is important to ensure that these developments reach all sectors of the community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin van Kessel
- LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom; Department of International Health, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands; Digital Public Health Task Force, Association of School of Public Health in the European Region (ASPHER), Brussels, Belgium.
| | | | - Michael Anderson
- LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
| | - Brian McMillan
- Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
| | - Elias Mossialos
- LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Unni E, Coles T, Lavallee DC, Freel J, Roberts N, Absolom K. Patient adherence to patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion in clinical care: current understanding and future recommendations. Qual Life Res 2024; 33:281-290. [PMID: 37695476 PMCID: PMC10784330 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-023-03505-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/11/2023] [Indexed: 09/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used as an assessment and monitoring tool in clinical practice. However, patient adherence to PROMs completions are typically not well documented or explained in published studies and reports. Through a collaboration between the International Society for Quality-of-Life Research (ISOQOL) Patient Engagement and QOL in Clinical Practice Special Interest Groups (SIGs) case studies were collated as a platform to explore how adherence can be evaluated and understood. Case studies were drawn from across a range of clinically and methodologically diverse PROMs activities. RESULTS The case studies identified that the influences on PROMs adherence vary. Key drivers include PROMs administeration methods within a service and wider system, patient capacity to engage and clinician engagement with PROMs information. It was identified that it is important to evaluate PROMs integration and adherence from multiple perspectives. CONCLUSION PROM completion rates are an important indicator of patient adherence. Future research prioritizing an understanding of PROMs completion rates by patients is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Jennifer Freel
- University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre, Pittsburg, PA, USA
| | - Natasha Roberts
- The University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, QLD, Australia.
- STARS Education and Research Alliance, Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service (STARS), The University of Queensland and Metro North Health, Herston, QLD, Australia.
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
da Silva Lopes AM, Colomer-Lahiguera S, Darnac C, Giacomini S, Bugeia S, Gutknecht G, Spurrier-Bernard G, Aedo-Lopez V, Mederos N, Latifyan S, Addedo A, Michielin O, Eicher M. Development of an eHealth-enhanced model of care for the monitoring and management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Support Care Cancer 2023; 31:484. [PMID: 37480546 PMCID: PMC10363070 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07934-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2022] [Accepted: 07/07/2023] [Indexed: 07/24/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data in routine care has been tied to direct patient benefits such as improved quality of care and symptom control and even overall survival. The modes of action behind such benefits are seldom described in detail. Here, we describe the development of a model of care leveraging ePRO data to monitor and manage symptoms of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS Development was split into four stages: (1) identification of an underlying theoretical framework, (2) the selection of an ePRO measure (ePROM), (3) the adaptation of an electronic application to collect ePRO data, and (4) the description of an ePRO-oriented workflow. The model of care is currently evaluated in a bicentric longitudinal randomized controlled phase II trial, the IePRO study. RESULTS The IePRO model of care is grounded in the eHealth Enhanced Chronic Care Model. Patients are prompted to report symptoms using an electronic mobile application. Triage nurses are alerted, review the reported symptoms, and contact patients in case of a new or worsening symptom. Nurses use the UKONS 24-hour telephone triage tool to issue patient management recommendations to the oncology team. Adapted care coordinating procedures facilitate team collaboration and provide patients with timely feedback. CONCLUSION This report clarifies how components of care are created and modified to leverage ePRO to enhance care. The model describes a workflow that enables care teams to be proactive and provide patients with timely, multidisciplinary support to manage symptoms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- André Manuel da Silva Lopes
- Institute for Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IFS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Route de la Corniche 10, CH-1010, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Sara Colomer-Lahiguera
- Institute for Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IFS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Route de la Corniche 10, CH-1010, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Célia Darnac
- Institute for Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IFS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Route de la Corniche 10, CH-1010, Lausanne, Switzerland
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Stellio Giacomini
- Institute for Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IFS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Route de la Corniche 10, CH-1010, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Sébastien Bugeia
- Department of Oncology, Geneva University Hospital (HUG), Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211, Genève, Switzerland
| | - Garance Gutknecht
- Department of Oncology, Geneva University Hospital (HUG), Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211, Genève, Switzerland
| | | | - Veronica Aedo-Lopez
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Medicine and Dentistry, Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Nuria Mederos
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Sofiya Latifyan
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Alfredo Addedo
- Department of Oncology, Geneva University Hospital (HUG), Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211, Genève, Switzerland
| | - Olivier Michielin
- Department of Oncology, Geneva University Hospital (HUG), Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211, Genève, Switzerland
| | - Manuela Eicher
- Institute for Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IFS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Route de la Corniche 10, CH-1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Pritchett JC, Patt D, Thanarajasingam G, Schuster A, Snyder C. Patient-Reported Outcomes, Digital Health, and the Quest to Improve Health Equity. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2023; 43:e390678. [PMID: 37290027 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_390678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
The theme of the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting is Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research. As we aim to partner with patients to improve their health care, digital tools have the potential to enhance patient-centered cancer care and make clinical research more accessible and generalizable. Using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) to collect patients' reports of symptoms, functioning, and well-being facilitates patient-clinician communication and improves care and outcomes. Early studies suggest that racial and ethnic minority populations, older patients, and patients with less education may benefit even more from ePRO implementation. Clinical practices looking to implement ePROs can refer to the resources of the PROTEUS Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users & Stakeholders). Beyond ePROs, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer practices have rapidly adopted other digital tools (eg, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring). As implementation grows, we must be aware of the limitations of these tools and implement them in ways to promote optimal function, access, and ease of use. Infrastructure, patient, provider, and system-level barriers need to be addressed. Partnerships across all levels can inform development and implementation of digital tools to meet the needs of diverse groups. In this article, we describe how we use ePROs and other digital health tools in cancer care, how digital tools can expand access to and generalizability of oncology care and research, and prospects for broader implementation and use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joshua C Pritchett
- Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
- Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Debra Patt
- Texas Oncology, Dallas Texas and Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
| | | | - Anne Schuster
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH
| | - Claire Snyder
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD
- Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hjollund NHI, Larsen LP, de Thurah AL, Grove BE, Skuladottir H, Linnet H, Friis RB, Johnsen SP, May O, Jensen AL, Hansen TK, Taarnhøj GA, Tolstrup LK, Pappot H, Ivarsen P, Dørflinger L, Jessen A, Sørensen NT, Schougaard LMV, Team TA. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in chronic and malignant diseases: ten years' experience with PRO-algorithm-based patient-clinician interaction (telePRO) in AmbuFlex. Qual Life Res 2023; 32:1053-1067. [PMID: 36639598 PMCID: PMC10063508 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-022-03322-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/06/2022] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) measures may be used as the basis for out-patient follow-up instead of fixed appointments. The patients attend follow-up from home by filling in questionnaires developed for that specific aim and patient group (telePRO). The questionnaires are handled in real time by a specific algorithm, which assigns an outcome color reflecting clinical need. The specific questionnaires and algorithms (named solutions) are constructed in a consensus process with clinicians. We aimed to describe AmbuFlex' telePRO solutions and the algorithm outcomes and variation between patient groups, and to discuss possible applications and challenges. METHODS TelePRO solutions with more than 100 processed questionnaires were included in the analysis. Data were retrieved together with data from national registers. Characteristics of patients, questionnaires and outcomes were tabulated for each solution. Graphs were constructed depicting the overall and within-patient distribution of algorithm outcomes for each solution. RESULTS From 2011 to 2021, 29 specific telePRO solutions were implemented within 24 different ICD-10 groups. A total of 42,015 patients were referred and answered 171,268 questionnaires. An existing applicable instrument with cut-off values was available for four solutions, whereas items were selected or developed ad hoc for the other solutions. Mean age ranged from 10.7 (Pain in children) to 73.3 years (chronic kidney disease). Mortality among referred patients varied between 0 (obesity, asthma, endometriosis and pain in children) and 528 per 1000 patient years (Lung cancer). There was substantial variation in algorithm outcome across patient groups while different solutions within the same patient group varied little. DISCUSSION TelePRO can be applied in diseases where PRO can reflect clinical status and needs. Questionnaires and algorithms should be adapted for the specific patient groups and clinical aims. When PRO is used as replacement for clinical contact, special carefulness should be observed with respect to patient safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niels Henrik I Hjollund
- AmbuFlex - Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Central Denmark Region, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark.
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
| | - Louise Pape Larsen
- AmbuFlex - Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Central Denmark Region, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark
| | | | - Birgith Engelst Grove
- AmbuFlex - Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Central Denmark Region, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark
| | | | - Hanne Linnet
- Department of Oncology, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark
| | | | - Søren Paaske Johnsen
- Danish Center for Clinical Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Ole May
- Department of Medicine, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark
| | | | | | - Gry Assam Taarnhøj
- Department of Oncology, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Lærke Kjær Tolstrup
- Department of Oncology, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Helle Pappot
- Department of Oncology, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Per Ivarsen
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Anne Jessen
- AmbuFlex - Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Central Denmark Region, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark
| | - Nanna Toxvig Sørensen
- AmbuFlex - Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Central Denmark Region, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark
| | - Liv Marit Valen Schougaard
- AmbuFlex - Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Central Denmark Region, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark
| | - The AmbuFlex Team
- AmbuFlex - Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Central Denmark Region, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Pan LC, Wu XR, Lu Y, Zhang HQ, Zhou YL, Liu X, Liu SL, Yan QY. Artificial intelligence empowered Digital Health Technologies in Cancer Survivorship Care: a scoping review. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2022; 9:100127. [PMID: 36176267 PMCID: PMC9513729 DOI: 10.1016/j.apjon.2022.100127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2022] [Accepted: 07/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective The objectives of this systematic review are to describe features and specific application scenarios for current cancer survivorship care services of Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven digital health technologies (DHTs) and to explore the acceptance and briefly evaluate its feasibility in the application process. Methods Search for literatures published from 2010 to 2022 on sites MEDLINE, IEEE-Xplor, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus systematically. The types of literatures include original research, descriptive study, randomized controlled trial, pilot study, and feasible or acceptable study. The literatures above described current status and effectiveness of digital medical technologies based on AI and used in cancer survivorship care services. Additionally, we use QuADS quality assessment tool to evaluate the quality of literatures included in this review. Results 43 studies that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed and qualitatively synthesized. The current status and results related to the application of AI-driven DHTs in cancer survivorship care were reviewed. Most of these studies were designed specifically for breast cancer survivors’ care and focused on the areas of recurrence or secondary cancer prediction, clinical decision support, cancer survivability prediction, population or treatment stratified, anti-cancer treatment-induced adverse reaction prediction, and so on. Applying AI-based DHTs to cancer survivors actually has shown some positive outcomes, including increased motivation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), reduce fatigue and pain levels, improved quality of life, and physical function. However, current research mostly explored the technology development and formation (testing) phases, with limited-scale population, and single-center trial. Therefore, it is not suitable to draw conclusions that the effectiveness of AI-based DHTs in supportive cancer care, as most of applications are still in the early stage of development and feasibility testing. Conclusions While digital therapies are promising in the care of cancer patients, more high-quality studies are still needed in the future to demonstrate the effectiveness of digital therapies in cancer care. Studies should explore how to develop uniform standards for measuring patient-related outcomes, ensure the scientific validity of research methods, and emphasize patient and health practitioner involvement in the development and use of technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lu-Chen Pan
- Department of Nursing, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China
| | - Xiao-Ru Wu
- School of Nursing, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Ying Lu
- Department of Nursing, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China
- School of Nursing, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Han-Qing Zhang
- Health Science Center, Yangtze University, Jinzhou 434023, China
| | - Yao-Ling Zhou
- Department of Nursing, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China
- School of Nursing, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Xue Liu
- School of Nursing, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Sheng-Lin Liu
- Department of Medical Engineering, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China
- Corresponding authors.
| | - Qiao-Yuan Yan
- Department of Nursing, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China
- Corresponding authors.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kennedy F, Shearsmith L, Holmes M, Peacock R, Lindner OC, Megson M, Velikova G. 'We do need to keep some human touch'-Patient and clinician experiences of ovarian cancer follow-up and the potential for an electronic patient-reported outcome pathway: A qualitative interview study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2022; 31:e13557. [PMID: 35146821 PMCID: PMC9287040 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13557] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2021] [Revised: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 01/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to explore experiences of follow‐up after treatment and views on an electronic patient‐reported outcome (ePRO) pathway among ovarian cancer patients and clinicians. Methods Semi‐structured qualitative interviews were conducted with clinicians and patients previously treated for ovarian cancer. Interviews explored experiences of the current follow‐up pathway, patients' needs and views on an ePRO pathway enabling patients to report symptoms online rather than attend clinic‐based appointments. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. Results Sixteen patients and 10 clinicians participated from four hospitals in England. Four key themes were identified: transition into follow‐up, key features of effective follow‐up, issues in follow‐up and views of ePRO. Both patients and clinicians saw benefits of an ePRO pathway alongside continued access to specialist support and discussed various practicalities (e.g., frequency, introduction and communication). Technology concerns and feelings of abandonment were highlighted as barriers. The proposed impact on clinical and individual patient outcomes was discussed. Conclusion Patient and clinician views on follow‐up and an ePRO pathway informed key recommendations on the development/introduction of ePRO follow‐up. Technology use in healthcare will continue to grow and may offer solutions to facilitate responsive and tailored care. Further research should explore the safety, experiences and acceptability of ePRO follow‐up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona Kennedy
- Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research (LIMR) at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Leanne Shearsmith
- Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research (LIMR) at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.,Academic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Marie Holmes
- Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research (LIMR) at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Rosemary Peacock
- Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research (LIMR) at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Oana C Lindner
- Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research (LIMR) at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Molly Megson
- Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research (LIMR) at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.,Academic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Galina Velikova
- Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research (LIMR) at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kosse LJ, Weits G, Vonkeman HE, Tas SW, Hoentjen F, Van Doorn MB, Spuls PI, D'Haens GR, Nurmohamed MT, van Puijenbroek EP, Van Den Bemt BJ, Jessurun NT. Patients' perspectives on a drug safety monitoring system for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases based on patient-reported outcomes. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2021; 20:1565-1572. [PMID: 34348543 DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2021.1963436] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are increasingly used in cohort event monitoring (CEM) to obtain a better understanding of patients' real-world experience with drugs. Despite the leading role for patients, little is known about their perspectives on CEM systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In a cross-sectional open survey following the rationale of the Technology Acceptance Model, we aimed to obtain insight in patients' perspectives on the perceived usefulness, ease of use and attitude toward using a PRO-based drug safety monitoring system for ADRs attributed to biologics. RESULTS Patients considered structural reporting of ADRs in web-based questionnaires as useful and not burdensome. It was preferred to link the questionnaire frequency to regular hospital consultations or the biologic administration schedule. Various respondents were interested in sharing questionnaires with their medical specialist (49.0%) or pharmacist (34.2%), and suggested to minimize the questionnaire frequency in case of an unaltered situation or absence of ADRs. CONCLUSIONS Patients' perspectives should be considered in the setup of PRO-based CEM studies, as this contributes to data quality and patient centeredness. Since incorporation of patients' perspectives in CEM studies is indispensable, a delicate balance should be found between user-friendliness and study aims.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leanne J Kosse
- Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, 's-hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
| | - Gerda Weits
- Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, 's-hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
| | - Harald E Vonkeman
- Department of Rheumatology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.,Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Sander W Tas
- Department of Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, Location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Infection & Immunity Institute and Amsterdam Rheumatology & Immunology Center (ARC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frank Hoentjen
- Department of Gastroenterology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Phyllis I Spuls
- Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health, Immunity and Infections, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geert R D'Haens
- Department of Gastroenterology, Amsterdam UMC, Location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Michael T Nurmohamed
- Department of Rheumatology, Reade and Amsterdam Rheumatology & Immunology Center (ARC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eugène P van Puijenbroek
- Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, 's-hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.,University of Groningen, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology & Pharmacoeconomics, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Bart Jf Van Den Bemt
- Department of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.,Department of Pharmacy, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Naomi T Jessurun
- Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, 's-hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Wolff AC, Dresselhuis A, Hejazi S, Dixon D, Gibson D, Howard AF, Liva S, Astle B, Reimer-Kirkham S, Noonan VK, Edwards L. Healthcare provider characteristics that influence the implementation of individual-level patient-centered outcome measure (PROM) and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) data across practice settings: a protocol for a mixed methods systematic review with a narrative synthesis. Syst Rev 2021; 10:169. [PMID: 34108024 PMCID: PMC8188663 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01725-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2021] [Accepted: 05/31/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Substantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about how healthcare providers implement individual-level PROMs and PREMs data into daily practice. METHODS This mixed methods systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for "PROMs," PREMs," and "implementation" will be used to search eight databases (i.e., MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Evidence-based Medicine Reviews, and ProQuest (Dissertation and Theses)) with limiters of English from 2009 onwards. Study selection criteria include implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using validated tools (e.g., Joanna Briggs Institute). Guided by the review questions, data extraction and synthesis will occur simultaneously to identify biographical information and methodological characteristics as well as classify study findings related to implementation processes and strategies. As part of the narrative synthesis approach, two frameworks will be utilized: (a) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify influential factors of PROMs and PREMs implementation and (b) Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to illicit strategies. Data management will be undertaken using NVivo 12TM. DISCUSSION Data from PROMs and PREMs are critical to adopt a person-centered approach to healthcare. Findings from this review will guide subsequent phases of a larger project that includes interviews and a consensus-building forum with end users to create guidelines for implementing PROMs and PREMs at the point of care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42020182904 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela C. Wolff
- School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia V2Y 1Y1 Canada
| | - Andrea Dresselhuis
- School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia V2Y 1Y1 Canada
| | - Samar Hejazi
- Department of Evaluation and Research Services, Fraser Health Authority, Suite 400, 13450 – 102nd Avenue, Surrey, BC V3T 0H1 Canada
| | - Duncan Dixon
- N.M. Alloway Library, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, BC V2Y 1Y1 Canada
| | - Deborah Gibson
- School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia V2Y 1Y1 Canada
| | - A. Fuchsia Howard
- Faculty of Applied Sciences, School of Nursing, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus, T201 - 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 2B5 Canada
| | - Sarah Liva
- School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia V2Y 1Y1 Canada
| | - Barbara Astle
- School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia V2Y 1Y1 Canada
| | - Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham
- School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia V2Y 1Y1 Canada
| | - Vanessa K. Noonan
- Research and Best Practice Implementation, Praxis Spinal Cord Institute, 818 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9 Canada
| | - Lisa Edwards
- Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Parimbelli E, Wilk S, Cornet R, Sniatala P, Sniatala K, Glaser SLC, Fraterman I, Boekhout AH, Ottaviano M, Peleg M. A review of AI and Data Science support for cancer management. Artif Intell Med 2021; 117:102111. [PMID: 34127240 DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2021.102111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2020] [Revised: 12/23/2020] [Accepted: 05/11/2021] [Indexed: 02/09/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Thanks to improvement of care, cancer has become a chronic condition. But due to the toxicity of treatment, the importance of supporting the quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients increases. Monitoring and managing QoL relies on data collected by the patient in his/her home environment, its integration, and its analysis, which supports personalization of cancer management recommendations. We review the state-of-the-art of computerized systems that employ AI and Data Science methods to monitor the health status and provide support to cancer patients managed at home. OBJECTIVE Our main objective is to analyze the literature to identify open research challenges that a novel decision support system for cancer patients and clinicians will need to address, point to potential solutions, and provide a list of established best-practices to adopt. METHODS We designed a review study, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, analyzing studies retrieved from PubMed related to monitoring cancer patients in their home environments via sensors and self-reporting: what data is collected, what are the techniques used to collect data, semantically integrate it, infer the patient's state from it and deliver coaching/behavior change interventions. RESULTS Starting from an initial corpus of 819 unique articles, a total of 180 papers were considered in the full-text analysis and 109 were finally included in the review. Our findings are organized and presented in four main sub-topics consisting of data collection, data integration, predictive modeling and patient coaching. CONCLUSION Development of modern decision support systems for cancer needs to utilize best practices like the use of validated electronic questionnaires for quality-of-life assessment, adoption of appropriate information modeling standards supplemented by terminologies/ontologies, adherence to FAIR data principles, external validation, stratification of patients in subgroups for better predictive modeling, and adoption of formal behavior change theories. Open research challenges include supporting emotional and social dimensions of well-being, including PROs in predictive modeling, and providing better customization of behavioral interventions for the specific population of cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - S Wilk
- Poznan University of Technology, Poland
| | - R Cornet
- Amsterdam University Medical Centre, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - S L C Glaser
- Amsterdam University Medical Centre, the Netherlands
| | - I Fraterman
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - A H Boekhout
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Aiyegbusi OL, Nair D, Peipert JD, Schick-Makaroff K, Mucsi I. A narrative review of current evidence supporting the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in the management of chronic diseases. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 2021; 12:20406223211015958. [PMID: 34104376 PMCID: PMC8150668 DOI: 10.1177/20406223211015958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2020] [Accepted: 04/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
An application of telemedicine of growing interest and relevance is the use of personal computers and mobile devices to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are self-reports of patients' health status without interpretation by anyone else. The tools developed to assess PROs are known as patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs). The technological innovations that have led to an increased ownership of electronic devices have also facilitated the development of electronic PROMs (ePROMs). ePROMs are a conduit for telemedicine in the care of patients with chronic diseases. Various studies have demonstrated that the use of ePROMs in routine clinical practice is both acceptable and feasible with patients increasingly expressing a preference for an electronic mode of administration. There is increasing evidence that the use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePROMs) could have significant impacts on outcomes valued by patients, healthcare providers and researchers. Whilst the development and implementation of these systems may be initially costly and resource-intensive, patient preferences and existing evidence to support their implementation suggests the need for continued research prioritisation in this area. This narrative review summarises and discusses evidence of the impact of ePROMs on clinical parameters and outcomes relevant to chronic diseases. We also explore recently published literature regarding issues that may influence the robust implementation of ePROMs for routine clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Centre, West Midlands, UK
| | - Devika Nair
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA Vanderbilt O’Brien Center for Kidney Disease, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - John Devin Peipert
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | - Istvan Mucsi
- Multiorgan Transplant Program, University Health Network and Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Absolom K, Warrington L, Hudson E, Hewison J, Holch P, Dawkins B, Hulme C, Brown J, Velikova G. Reply to H. Shojima et al. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39:2633-2634. [PMID: 33979207 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.00684] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Absolom
- Kate Absolom, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Lorraine Warrington, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Eleanor Hudson, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Jenny Hewison, PhD, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Patricia Holch, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; Bryony Dawkins, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Claire Hulme, MA, PhD, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom; Julia Brown, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; and Galina Velikova, MD, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Lorraine Warrington
- Kate Absolom, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Lorraine Warrington, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Eleanor Hudson, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Jenny Hewison, PhD, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Patricia Holch, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; Bryony Dawkins, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Claire Hulme, MA, PhD, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom; Julia Brown, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; and Galina Velikova, MD, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Eleanor Hudson
- Kate Absolom, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Lorraine Warrington, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Eleanor Hudson, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Jenny Hewison, PhD, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Patricia Holch, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; Bryony Dawkins, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Claire Hulme, MA, PhD, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom; Julia Brown, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; and Galina Velikova, MD, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Jenny Hewison
- Kate Absolom, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Lorraine Warrington, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Eleanor Hudson, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Jenny Hewison, PhD, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Patricia Holch, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; Bryony Dawkins, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Claire Hulme, MA, PhD, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom; Julia Brown, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; and Galina Velikova, MD, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Patricia Holch
- Kate Absolom, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Lorraine Warrington, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Eleanor Hudson, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Jenny Hewison, PhD, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Patricia Holch, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; Bryony Dawkins, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Claire Hulme, MA, PhD, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom; Julia Brown, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; and Galina Velikova, MD, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Bryony Dawkins
- Kate Absolom, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Lorraine Warrington, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Eleanor Hudson, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Jenny Hewison, PhD, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Patricia Holch, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; Bryony Dawkins, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Claire Hulme, MA, PhD, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom; Julia Brown, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; and Galina Velikova, MD, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Claire Hulme
- Kate Absolom, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Lorraine Warrington, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Eleanor Hudson, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Jenny Hewison, PhD, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Patricia Holch, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; Bryony Dawkins, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Claire Hulme, MA, PhD, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom; Julia Brown, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; and Galina Velikova, MD, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Julia Brown
- Kate Absolom, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Lorraine Warrington, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Eleanor Hudson, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Jenny Hewison, PhD, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Patricia Holch, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; Bryony Dawkins, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Claire Hulme, MA, PhD, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom; Julia Brown, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; and Galina Velikova, MD, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Galina Velikova
- Kate Absolom, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Lorraine Warrington, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Eleanor Hudson, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Jenny Hewison, PhD, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Patricia Holch, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; Bryony Dawkins, MSc, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Claire Hulme, MA, PhD, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom; Julia Brown, MSc, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; and Galina Velikova, MD, PhD, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Absolom K, Warrington L, Hudson E, Hewison J, Morris C, Holch P, Carter R, Gibson A, Holmes M, Clayton B, Rogers Z, McParland L, Conner M, Glidewell L, Woroncow B, Dawkins B, Dickinson S, Hulme C, Brown J, Velikova G. Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial of eRAPID: eHealth Intervention During Chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39:734-747. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.02015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent. METHODS Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246. RESULTS Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 ( P = .028) and 12 ( P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) ( P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks ( P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy ( P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS ( P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Absolom
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Lorraine Warrington
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Eleanor Hudson
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Jenny Hewison
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Carolyn Morris
- Patient Representative, Independent Cancer Patients Voices, Brighton, United Kingdom
| | - Patricia Holch
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
- Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Robert Carter
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Andrea Gibson
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Marie Holmes
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Beverly Clayton
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Zoe Rogers
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Lucy McParland
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Conner
- School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Liz Glidewell
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Barbara Woroncow
- Patient Representative, Research Advisory Group to Patient-Centred Outcomes Research at Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Bryony Dawkins
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Dickinson
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Claire Hulme
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
- University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom
| | - Julia Brown
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Galina Velikova
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Tiase VL, Hull W, McFarland MM, Sward KA, Del Fiol G, Staes C, Weir C, Cummins MR. Patient-generated health data and electronic health record integration: a scoping review. JAMIA Open 2020; 3:619-627. [PMID: 33758798 PMCID: PMC7969964 DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaa052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2020] [Revised: 08/24/2020] [Accepted: 09/24/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives Patient-generated health data (PGHD) are clinically relevant data captured by patients outside of the traditional care setting. Clinical use of PGHD has emerged as an essential issue. This study explored the evidence to determine the extent of and describe the characteristics of PGHD integration into electronic health records (EHRs). Methods In August 2019, we conducted a systematic scoping review. We included studies with complete, partial, or in-progress PGHD and EHR integration within a clinical setting. The retrieved articles were screened for eligibility by 2 researchers, and data from eligible articles were abstracted, coded, and analyzed. Results A total of 19 studies met inclusion criteria after screening 9463 abstracts. Most of the study designs were pilots and all were published between 2013 and 2019. Types of PGHD were biometric and patient activity (57.9%), questionnaires and surveys (36.8%), and health history (5.3%). Diabetes was the most common patient condition (42.1%) for PGHD collection. Active integration (57.9%) was slightly more common than passive integration (31.6%). We categorized emergent themes into the 3 steps of PGHD flow. Themes emerged concerning resource requirements, data delivery to the EHR, and preferences for review. Discussion PGHD integration into EHRs appears to be at an early stage. PGHD have the potential to close health care gaps and support personalized medicine. Efforts are needed to understand how to optimize PGHD integration into EHRs considering resources, standards for EHR delivery, and clinical workflows.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria L Tiase
- University of Utah, College of Nursing, The Value Institute, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA
| | - William Hull
- University of Utah, College of Nursing, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Mary M McFarland
- University of Utah, Eccles Health Sciences Library, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | | | - Guilherme Del Fiol
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Catherine Staes
- University of Utah, College of Nursing, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Charlene Weir
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Mollie R Cummins
- University of Utah, College of Nursing, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Richards HS, Blazeby JM, Portal A, Harding R, Reed T, Lander T, Chalmers KA, Carter R, Singhal R, Absolom K, Velikova G, Avery KNL. A real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following surgery: a pilot study in cancer-related surgery. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:543. [PMID: 32522163 PMCID: PMC7285449 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07027-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2019] [Accepted: 06/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Advances in peri-operative care of surgical oncology patients result in shorter hospital stays. Earlier discharge may bring benefits, but complications can occur while patients are recovering at home. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems may enhance remote, real-time symptom monitoring and detection of complications after hospital discharge, thereby improving patient safety and outcomes. Evidence of the effectiveness of ePRO systems in surgical oncology is lacking. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery. Methods A pilot study in two UK hospitals included patients who had undergone cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery. Participants completed the ePRO symptom-report at discharge, twice in the first week and weekly post-discharge. Symptom-report completeness, system actions, barriers to using the ePRO system and technical performance were examined. The ePRO surgery system is an online symptom-report that allows clinicians to view patient symptom-reports within hospital electronic health records and was developed as part of the eRAPID project. Clinically derived algorithms provide patients with tailored self-management advice, prompts to contact a clinician or automated clinician alerts depending on symptom severity. Interviews with participants and clinicians determined the acceptability of the ePRO system to support patients and their clinical management during recovery. Results Ninety-one patients were approached, of which 40 consented to participate (27 male, mean age 64 years). Symptom-report response rates were high (range 63–100%). Of 197 ePRO completions analysed, 76 (39%) triggered self-management advice, 72 (36%) trigged advice to contact a clinician, 9 (5%) triggered a clinician alert and 40 (20%) did not require advice. Participants found the ePRO system reassuring, providing timely information and advice relevant to supporting their recovery. Clinicians regarded the system as a useful adjunct to usual care, by signposting patients to seek appropriate help and enhancing their understanding of patients’ experiences during recovery. Conclusion Use of the ePRO system for the real-time, remote monitoring of symptoms in patients recovering from cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery is feasible and acceptable. A definitive randomised controlled trial is needed to evaluate the impact of the system on patients’ wellbeing after hospital discharge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H S Richards
- Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - J M Blazeby
- Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.,Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, BS2 8HW, UK
| | - A Portal
- Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - R Harding
- Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, BS2 8HW, UK
| | - T Reed
- Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, BS2 8HW, UK
| | - T Lander
- Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, BS2 8HW, UK
| | - K A Chalmers
- Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - R Carter
- Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK
| | - R Singhal
- Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelson Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK
| | - K Absolom
- Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK
| | - G Velikova
- Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK
| | - K N L Avery
- Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Gerber A, Da Silva Lopes A, Szüts N, Simon M, Ribordy‐Baudat V, Ebneter A, Perrinjaquet C, Gaignard M, Nicodet D, Betticher D, Bula G, Cote M, Duchosal MA, Berret P, Dietrich P, Brennan C, Decosterd S, Ferreira Nobre S, Peters S, Koelliker R, Ninane F, Jeitziner M, Colomer‐Lahiguera S, Eicher M. Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool. Health Sci Rep 2020; 3:e160. [PMID: 32405540 PMCID: PMC7217322 DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/29/2020] [Revised: 03/25/2020] [Accepted: 03/30/2020] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS The occurrence rate of adverse events (AEs) related to care among hospitalized oncology patients in Switzerland remains unknown. The primary objective of this study was to describe, for the first time, the occurrence rate, type, severity of harm, and preventability of AEs related to care, reported in health records of hospitalized hematological and solid-tumor cancer patients in three Swiss hospitals. METHODS Using an adapted version of the validated Global Trigger Tool (GTT) from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, we conducted a retrospective record review of patients discharged from oncology units over a 6-week period during 2018. Our convenience sample included all records from adult patients (≥18 years of age), diagnosed with cancer, and hospitalized (>24 hours). Per the GTT method, two trained nurses independently assessed patient records to identify AEs using triggers, and physicians from the included units analyzed the consensus of the two nurses. Together, they assessed the severity and preventability of each AE. RESULTS From the sample of 224 reviewed records, we identified 661 triggers and 169 AEs in 94 of them (42%). Pain related to care was the most frequent AE (n = 29), followed by constipation (n = 17). AEs rates were 75.4 per 100 admissions and 106.6 per 1000 patient days. Most of the identified AEs (78%) caused temporary harm to the patient and required an intervention. Among AEs during hospitalization (n = 125), 76 (61%) were considered not preventable, 28 (22%) preventable, and 21 (17%) undetermined. CONCLUSION About half of the hospitalized oncology patients suffered from at least one AE related to care during their hospitalization. Pain, constipation, and nosocomial infections were the most frequent AEs. It is, therefore, essential to identify AEs to guide future clinical practice initiatives to ensure patient safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Gerber
- School of Health Sciences (HESAV)University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES‐SO)LausanneSwitzerland
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IUFRS) Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
| | - André Da Silva Lopes
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IUFRS) Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV‐UNILLausanneSwitzerland
| | - Natacha Szüts
- Internal Medicine, Cantoal Hospital, Hôpital FribourgeoisFribourgSwitzerland
| | - Michael Simon
- Institute of Nursing Science, University of BaselBaselSwitzerland
- Nursing Research UnitInselspital University Hospital, BerneSwitzerland
| | | | - Andreas Ebneter
- Internal Medicine, Cantoal Hospital, Hôpital FribourgeoisFribourgSwitzerland
| | - Claire Perrinjaquet
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV‐UNILLausanneSwitzerland
| | | | - Delphine Nicodet
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV‐UNILLausanneSwitzerland
| | - Daniel Betticher
- Internal Medicine, Cantoal Hospital, Hôpital FribourgeoisFribourgSwitzerland
| | - Grégoire Bula
- Division of OncologyUniversity Hospitals GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
| | - Maxime Cote
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV‐UNILLausanneSwitzerland
| | | | | | | | | | - Sandy Decosterd
- Division of OncologyUniversity Hospitals GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
| | | | - Solange Peters
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV‐UNILLausanneSwitzerland
| | - Reto Koelliker
- Internal Medicine, Cantoal Hospital, Hôpital FribourgeoisFribourgSwitzerland
| | - Françoise Ninane
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV‐UNILLausanneSwitzerland
| | | | - Sara Colomer‐Lahiguera
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IUFRS) Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV‐UNILLausanneSwitzerland
| | - Manuela Eicher
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IUFRS) Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV‐UNILLausanneSwitzerland
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
A PRO-cision Medicine Methods Toolkit to Address the Challenges of Personalizing Cancer Care Using Patient-Reported Outcomes: Introduction to the Supplement. Med Care 2020; 57 Suppl 5 Suppl 1:S1-S7. [PMID: 30985589 DOI: 10.1097/mlr.0000000000001089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Patients are increasingly being asked to complete standardized, validated questionnaires with regard to their symptoms, functioning, and well-being [ie, patient-reported outcomes (PROs)] as part of routine care. These PROs can be used to inform patients' care and management, which we refer to as "PRO-cision Medicine." For PRO-cision Medicine to be most effective, clinicians and patients need to be able to understand what the PRO scores mean and how to act on the PRO results. The papers in this supplement to Medical Care describe various methods that have been used to address these issues. Specifically, the supplement includes 14 papers: 6 describe different methods for interpreting PROs and 8 describe how different PRO systems have addressed interpreting PRO scores and/or acting on PRO results. As such, this "Methods Toolkit" can inform clinicians and researchers aiming to implement routine PRO reporting into clinical practice by providing methodological fundamentals and real-world examples to promote personalized patient care.
Collapse
|
19
|
Brundage MD, Wu AW, Rivera YM, Snyder C. Promoting effective use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: themes from a "Methods Tool kit" paper series. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 122:153-159. [PMID: 32061828 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2019] [Revised: 01/03/2020] [Accepted: 01/16/2020] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES "PRO-cision Medicine," using patients' reports of their symptoms, functioning, and well-being to personalize their care, is becoming more prevalent. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed using standardized, validated measures. Research shows that clinicians' and patients' understanding of what the PRO scores mean and how to act on them is often suboptimal. Methods to improve interpretation of PRO scores and action based on PRO results can promote more effective use of PROs in practice. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A recent supplement to Medical Care describes various approaches to address challenges in interpreting and acting on PROs in practice and therefore serves as a "PRO-cision Medicine Methods Tool kit." This commentary provides an overview of the supplement and identifies cross-cutting themes guided by a theoretical framework. RESULTS Six papers describe methods for interpreting PROs, and eight papers describe how different PRO systems address interpreting PRO scores and/or acting on PRO results. Based on the theoretical framework, cross-cutting themes are described in terms of (1) providing PRO information, (2) using PRO data, (3) screening for problems and monitoring for changes, and (4) changing management and behavior. CONCLUSIONS The PRO-cision Medicine Methods Tool kit provides a useful resource for interpreting and acting on PRO scores to personalize patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael D Brundage
- Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Cancer Center of Southeastern Ontario at Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Albert W Wu
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Yonaira M Rivera
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Claire Snyder
- Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Giesinger JM, Loth FL, Aaronson NK, Arraras JI, Caocci G, Efficace F, Groenvold M, van Leeuwen M, Petersen MA, Ramage J, Tomaszewski KA, Young T, Holzner B. Thresholds for clinical importance were defined for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Computer Adaptive Testing Core—an adaptive measure of core quality of life domains in oncology clinical practice and research. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 117:117-125. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2019] [Revised: 09/17/2019] [Accepted: 09/30/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
21
|
Von Ah D, Brown C, Brown S, Bryant A, Davies M, Dodd M, Ferrell B, Hammer M, Knobf MT, Knoop T, LoBiondo-Wood G, Mayer D, Miaskowski C, Mitchell S, Song L, Watkins Bruner D, Wesmiller S, Cooley M. Research Agenda of the Oncology Nursing Society: 2019–2022. Oncol Nurs Forum 2019; 46:654-669. [DOI: 10.1188/19.onf.654-669] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|