Knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a comprehensive cancer center

The development of an archive of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in oncology: The Italian PRO4All project

BACKGROUND

Choosing the most adequate measure of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for a specific medical condition is not straightforward. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive archive of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), observer-reported outcome measures (ObsROMs) and caregiver-reported outcome measures (CROMs) in oncology and identify their main characteristics and target outcome domains.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As part of the Italian PRO4All Project, we retrieved questionnaires through an extensive search of online databases. We developed a data extraction form to collect information on cancer type, questionnaire variant(s), recall period, and scoring system. We performed a content analysis of the questionnaires to assign each item a specific outcome domain according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy.

RESULTS

A total of 386 PROMs (n = 356), ObsROMs (n = 13) and CROMs (n = 17) were identified and described; of these, 358 were also analyzed in their content. 47.3 % of the instruments were cancer type-specific, 45.1 % were generic for cancer and 7.9 % were developed for the general population but also recommended in oncology. The great majority (92.2 %) were patient-reported. In 50.3 % the recall period was "last week". The mean number of items per questionnaire was 22.0 (range: 1-130). 7794 items were assigned an outcome domain, the most frequent being emotional functioning/wellbeing (22 %), physical functioning (15.7 %), general outcomes (10.1 %) and delivery of care (8.9 %).

CONCLUSIONS

There are a variety of patient and caregiver-reported measures in oncology. This archive can guide researchers and practitioners in selecting the most suitable measures and fostering a patient-centered approach in clinical trials, clinical practice, and regulatory activities.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Atopic Dermatitis and Chronic Urticaria Are Underused in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated and standardized tools that complement physician evaluations and guide treatment decisions. They are crucial for monitoring atopic dermatitis (AD) and chronic urticaria (CU) in clinical practice, but there are unmet needs and knowledge gaps regarding their use in clinical practice.

OBJECCTIVE

We investigated the global real-world use of AD and CU PROMs in allergology and dermatology clinics as well as their associated local and regional networks.

METHODS

Across 72 specialized allergy and dermatology centers and their local and regional networks, 2,534 physicians in 73 countries completed a 53-item questionnaire on the use of PROMs for AD and CU.

RESULTS

Of 2,534 physicians, 1,308 were aware of PROMs. Of these, 14% and 15% used PROMs for AD and CU, respectively. Half of physicians who use PROMs do so only rarely or sometimes. Use of AD and CU PROM is associated with being female, younger, and a dermatologist. The Patient-Oriented Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Index and Urticaria Activity Score were the most common PROMs for AD and CU, respectively. Monitoring disease control and activity are the main drivers of the use of PROMs. Time constraints were the primary obstacle to using PROMs, followed by the impression that patients dislike PROMs. Users of AD and CU PROM would like training in selecting the proper PROM.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PROMs offer several benefits, their use in routine practice is suboptimal, and physicians perceive barriers to their use. It is essential to attain higher levels of PROM implementation in accordance with national and international standards.

PROACT 2.0: A new open-source tool to improve patient-doctor communication in clinical trials

The use of Digital Healthcare Products is leading to significant improvements in clinical practice. Herein, we discuss the development of PROACT 2.0 (Patient Reported Opinions About Clinical Tolerability v2.0), a novel open-source mobile and web application developed at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori in Milan. It was developed in collaboration with The Christie, Manchester, in the context of work package 2 of the UpSMART Accelerator project, involving a consortium of referral cancer centers from the UK, Spain and Italy. PROACT 2.0 enhances communication between patients and healthcare providers in cancer clinical trials, allowing patients to report adverse events and side effects, and healthcare teams to collect valuable patient-reported outcome measures for treatment management. PROACT 2.0 supports text, audio, and video messaging, offering a secure, non-urgent communication channel that integrates with, or replaces, traditional methods. Its user-friendly and multilingual interface provides a new route for patient engagement and streamlines the handling of logistical information. Positive feedback from initial testing warrants future enhancements for broader applicability in cancer research and treatment.

Exploring patients' experience using PROMs within routine post-discharge follow-up assessment after stroke: a mixed methods approach

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) are being used increasingly to measure health problems in stroke clinical practice. However, the implementation of these PROMs in routine stroke care is still in its infancy. To understand the value of PROMs used in ischemic stroke care, we explored the patients' experience with PROMs and with the consultation at routine post-discharge follow-up after stroke.

METHODS

In this prospective mixed methods study, patients with ischemic stroke completed an evaluation questionnaire about the use of PROMs and about their consultation in two Dutch hospitals. Additionally, telephone interviews were held to gain in-depth information about their experience with PROMs.

RESULTS

In total, 63 patients completed the evaluation questionnaire of which 10 patients were also interviewed. Most patients (82.2-96.6%) found completing the PROMs to be feasible and relevant. Half the patients (49.2-51.6%) considered the PROMs useful for the consultation and most patients (87.3-96.8%) reported the consultation as a positive experience. Completing the PROMs provided 51.6% of the patients with insight into their stroke-related problems. Almost 75% of the patients found the PROMs useful in giving the healthcare provider greater insight, and 60% reported discussing the PROM results during the consultation. Interviewed patients reported the added value of PROMs, particularly when arranging further care, in gaining a broader insight into the problems, and in ensuring all important topics were discussed during the consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Completing PROMs appears to be feasible for patients with stroke attending post-discharge consultation; the vast majority of patients experienced added value for themselves or the healthcare provider. We recommend that healthcare providers discuss the PROM results with their patients to improve the value of PROMs for the patient. This could also improve the willingness to complete PROMs in the future.

Understanding providers' perspectives using patient-reported outcomes in a pain management setting: a pilot study

Aim: This pilot study evaluated an electronic patient-reported outcomes collection system in pain management to understand providers' experiences using the data, and how it affects their patient interaction and guides their clinical decision-making. Materials & methods: Using stratified convenience sampling, nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with consented pain physicians. The transcribed, de-identified interviews were coded and analyzed. Results: Although most physicians utilized patient reported outcomes (PROs), one-third reported no significant change in their practice since implementation and 56% stated it does not influence their treatment recommendations. Conclusion: Despite the importance of measuring the impact of chronic pain on quality of life, there are significant limitations to the real-world use of PRO that may limit the patient's assessment and care.

The use of outcome data in patient consultations from the healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perspectives on the use of outcome data in consultations and to understand which aggregated outcomes patients find important.

METHODS

This study had a mixed-methods design and consisted of two steps: RESULTS: HCPs indicated that aggregated outcome data are not routinely used in consultations. They pointed out various barriers to using outcome data, e.g., low response rates of PROMs, and suggested actions to address these barriers, including training of HCPs in outcome data usage. Patients rated the majority of aggregated outcomes as important, although preferences differed between the studied health conditions.

CONCLUSION

Both HCPs and patients underscored the importance of discussing outcome data in consultations. Nevertheless, HCPs encountered several barriers to using outcome data. Furthermore, patients with different health conditions have somewhat different information needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study identified several actionable steps to enhance the collection and application of outcome data in consultations.

Barriers and facilitators of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) for patients in home palliative cancer care: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perceptions

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes in palliative care enable early monitoring and management of symptoms that most impact patients' daily lives; however, there are several barriers to adopting electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures (e-PROMs) in daily practice. This study explored the experiences of health care professionals (HCPs) regarding potential barriers and facilitators in implementing e-PROMs in palliative cancer care at home.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study. The data were collected from two focus groups structured according to the conceptual framework of Grol. HCPs involved in home palliative cancer care of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori of Milan were enrolled. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 245 codes were generated, 171 for the first focus group and 74 for the second focus group. The results were subdivided into subthemes according to Grol's themes: Innovation, Individual professional, Patient, Social context, Organizational context, except Economic Political context. Nine HCPs attended the first focus group, and ten attended the second. According to these participants, e-PROMs could be integrated into clinical practice after adequate training and support of HCPs at all stages of implementation. They identified barriers, especially in the social and organizational contexts, due to the uniqueness of the oncological end-of-life setting and the intangible care interventions, as well as many facilitators for the innovation that these tools bring and for improved communication with the patient and the healthcare team.

CONCLUSIONS

e-PROMs are perceived by HCPs as adding value to patient care and their work; however, barriers remain especially related to the fragility of these patients, the adequacy of technological systems, lack of education, and the risk of low humanization of care.

Characterizing Different Multidisciplinary Team Models Implemented Within One Comprehensive Cancer Center

Background

The multidisciplinary approach is considered "best practice" in oncology. Multidisciplinary Teamwork (MDTW) can be broadly classified into Multidisciplinary Team Meetings (MDTM) and Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinics (MDCC; involving also patients), yet both models are heterogeneously implemented.

Purpose

This study aims at describing the different MDTW implemented models in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Methods

All clinical unit directors of the hospital were contacted to identify any MDTW activities the personnel of the unit were involved in. Structured interviews were carried out to collect MDTWs information, ie, type (MDTM vs MDCC), team composition, aims, disease phase, use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Descriptive analyses and Social Network Analysis (SNA) were performed.

Results

Among 38 structured interviews, 25 concerned MDTMs and 13 in MDCCs. Responders were mainly surgeons (35%) and oncologists (29%), 35% of them were team leaders. Teams were mostly composed of physicians only (64% in MDTMs, 69% in MDCCs). Case managers (8% and 31%), palliative care specialists (12% and 23%) and psychologists (20% and 31%) were involved to a lesser extent, mainly when dealing with advanced disease. MDTWs were mainly aimed at integrating the skills of the different specialists (respectively 72% for MDTMs and 64% for MDCCs) and offering the best overall patient care pathway (64%, 61.5%). MDTWs were directed at patients in both diagnostic (72%, 61.5%) and locally advanced/metastatic (32%, 38.4%) disease. PROMs were seldom used (24%, 23%). SNA shows a similar density in the two MDTWs, but in the MDCCs two nodes remain isolated (pathologists and radiologists).

Conclusion

Despite a high number of MDTWs for advanced/metastatic disease, there is limited involvement of palliative care specialists, psychologists, and nurses.

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.

Routine patient assessment and the use of patient-reported outcomes in specialized palliative care in Japan

BACKGROUND

Discrepancies in symptom assessment between providers and patients are reported in cancer care, and the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been recommended for patients receiving palliative care. However, the status of the routine use of PROMs in palliative care in Japan is presently unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify this complex question. To this end, we administered a questionnaire survey either online or via telephone interviews (questionnaire: sent to 427 designated cancer hospitals, 423 palliative care units [PCUs], and 197 home hospices; interviews: conducted at 13 designated cancer hospitals, nine PCUs, and two home hospices).

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned from 458 institutions (44% response rate). We found that 35 palliative care teams (PCTs, 15%), 66 outpatient palliative care services (29%), 24 PCUs (11%) and one (5%) home hospice routinely used PROMs. The most frequently implemented instrument was the Comprehensive Care Needs Survey questionnaire. Moreover, 99 institutions (92%) that routinely used PROMs responded these instruments as useful in relieving patients' symptoms; and moreover, the response rate in regard to usefulness in symptom management was higher than that of institutions that did not routinely use PROMs (p = 0.002); > 50% of the institutions that routinely used PROMs stated that use of these instruments was influenced by disease progression and patients' cognitive function. Moreover, 24 institutions agreed to be interviewed, and interviews demonstrated the benefits of and the barriers to the implementation of PROMs. Effective methods used in the implementation of PROMs were introduced as efforts to reduce the burden placed on patients and to promote healthcare providers' education in the use of PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey quantified the status of the routine use of PROMs within specialized palliative care in Japan, revealed barriers to wider PROM use, and identified needed innovations. Only 108 institutions (24%) routinely used PROMs within specialized palliative care. Based on the results of the study, it is necessary to carefully consider the usefulness of PROs in clinical palliative care, perform careful selection of PROMs according to the patient's condition, and evaluate how specifically to introduce and operate PROMs.

Simultaneous care in oncology: Assessment of benefit in relation to symptoms, sex, and age in 753 patients

BACKGROUND

Early activation of palliative care for patients with advanced cancer is central in the treatment trajectory. At the Veneto Institute of Oncology, a simultaneous-care outpatient clinic (SCOC) has been active since 2014, where patients are evaluated by an oncologist together with a palliative care team. Recently, we reported on consecutive patients admitted at SCOC from 2018 to 2021 in terms of appropriateness, process, and outcome indicators. Here, we report further analysis in the same group of 753 patients, evaluating other parameters and the correlation between symptom intensity, gender, age, and survival.

METHODS

SCOC data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

Among the patients, 42.2% were women, and the median age was 68 years, with 46.7% of patients aged ≥70 years. The most prevalent disease type was gastrointestinal cancer (75.2%), and 90.9% of the patients had metastatic disease. The median score for the distress thermometer was 4; the vast majority of the patients (98.6%) reported physical problems, and 69.4% presented emotional issues. Younger women demonstrated a significantly greater median distress than other patients (p=0.0018). Almost all symptoms had a higher prevalence on the 0-3 Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) score, except for fatigue. About 43.8% of the patients received systemic anticancer treatment (SAT) in the last 60 days of life, 15.0% of whom received SAT in the last month and 3.1% in the last 2 weeks. For some symptoms, women frequently had more ESAS >3. Pain and nausea were significantly less reported by older patients compared with younger adults. Men had a lower risk of having MUST score ≥ 2 (p=0.0311). Men and older patients showed a lower prognosis awareness (p=0.0011 and p=0.0049, respectively). Older patients received less SAT within the last 30 days of life (p=0.0006) and had death risk decreased by 20.0%.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified two subgroups of patients with advanced cancer who require special attention and support due to important symptoms' burden detected by Patient Reported Outcome Measures tests: women and younger adults. These categories of patients require special attention and should be provided early access at SCOC. The role of an oncologist remains crucial to intercept all patients in need of early palliative care and balancing trade-offs of anticancer treatment in advanced metastatic disease.