Implementation of patient-reported outcomes for symptom management in oncology practice through the SIMPRO research consortium: a protocol for a pragmatic type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation multi-center cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial

Strategies for implementing an electronic patient-reported outcomes-based symptom management program across six cancer centers

BACKGROUND

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based symptom management improves cancer patients' outcomes. However, implementation of ePROs is challenging, requiring technical resources for integration into clinical systems, substantial buy-in from clinicians and patients, novel workflows to support between-visit symptom management, and institutional investment.

METHODS

The SIMPRO Research Consortium developed eSyM, an electronic health record-integrated, ePRO-based symptom management program for medical oncology and surgery patients and deployed it at six cancer centers between August 2019 and April 2022 in a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized stepped-wedge study. Sites documented implementation strategies monthly using REDCap, itemized them using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) list and mapped their target barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform eSyM program enhancement, facilitate inter-consortium knowledge sharing and guide future deployment efforts.

RESULTS

We documented 226 implementation strategies: 35 'foundational' strategies were applied consortium-wide by the coordinating center and 191 other strategies were developed by individual sites. We consolidated these 191 site-developed strategies into 64 unique strategies (i.e., removed duplicates) and classified the remainder as either 'universal', consistently used by multiple sites (N = 29), or 'adaptive', used only by individual sites (N = 35). Universal strategies were perceived as having the highest impact; they addressed eSyM clinical preparation, training, engagement of patients/clinicians, and program evaluation. Across all documented SIMPRO strategies, 44 of the 73 ERIC strategies were addressed and all 5 CFIR barriers were addressed.

CONCLUSION

Methodical collection of theory-based implementation strategies fostered the identification of universal, high-impact strategies that facilitated adoption of a novel care-delivery intervention by patients, clinicians, and institutions. Attention to the high-impact strategies identified in this project could support implementation of ePROs as a component of routine cancer care at other institutions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT03850912. February 22, 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03850912?term=hassett&draw=2&rank=1.

eHealth Platforms Facilitate Prostate Cancer Shared Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer survivorship care is essential for the early identification of cancer recurrence and progression and the monitoring of adverse effects. Prostate cancer survivorship programs have enabled care to be shared between specialists using digital healthcare platforms. We systematically reviewed the literature to examine if prostate cancer survivorship care had been successfully digitalised.

METHODS

English language articles were searched on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries. The search terms included combinations of "eHealth", "digital health", "prostate cancer", "shared care", and related keywords (studies published between [1 January 1946 and 20 March 2023]).

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 1722 publications, of which 17 studies were included in our final review. Diverse eHealth interventions (web platforms, apps, patient portals) for digital prostate cancer shared care enabled communication, symptom management, and holistic assessment, with potential for reducing anxiety, enhancing outcomes, and increasing engagement. The studies (9 months to 5 years duration) involved participants across different care phases (16 to 3521 participants). We identified ten eHealth platforms, which provided successful symptom tracking, needs assessment, and communications. The platform-based interventions improved some aspects of communication, symptom management, and care delivery. The ongoing clinical need for a robust digital platform that caters to all domains of shared care was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

eHealth will certainly play a central role in digital prostate cancer shared care, providing better health outcomes and care delivery. Future larger studies in this field should address the implementation barriers, including cost-effectiveness and primary care remuneration. It is also crucial to refine application useability and workflow, focusing on standardization and patient-centred approaches.

Feasibility of Weekly Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) Within a Stepped Care Model

CONTEXT

Patients with advanced cancer may experience symptoms and concerns that are inadequately identified by the healthcare team, leading to calls for patient-reported symptom monitoring.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the feasibility of administering weekly patient-reported online Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) questionnaires within the context of a stepped care model in the outpatient care setting.

METHODS

Analysis of intervention group data in a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a stepped care model of palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Patients in the intervention group were invited to complete the IPOS weekly for 16 weeks through a remotely-administered online questionnaire. At the end of the 16-week period, patients were invited to complete a feedback survey. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with more versus less than 70% completion of weekly questionnaires.

RESULTS

Among 111 patients who survived more than 16 weeks, the mean number of questionnaires completed was 9.2/16 (58%). A total of 53 out of the 111 patients (48%) completed more than 70% of the questionnaires. Higher education level was found to be associated with higher completion of the questionnaires. A total of 79 out of 111 (71%) patients responded to the feedback survey, of which 67 (85%) felt comfortable with completing the online questionnaire and 11 (14%) felt it was troublesome to complete it on a weekly basis.

CONCLUSION

In our study, there was suboptimal completion of patient-reported IPOS questionnaire. Further research is needed to improve the uptake of patient-reported outcomes in real-world clinical settings.

Effects of a change in recall period on reporting severe symptoms: an analysis of a pragmatic multisite trial

BACKGROUND

Optimal methods for deploying electronic patient-reported outcomes to manage symptoms in routine oncologic practice remain uncertain. The electronic symptom management (eSyM) program asks chemotherapy and surgery patients to self-report 12 common symptoms regularly. Feedback from nurses and patients led to changing the recall period from the past 7 days to the past 24 hours.

METHODS

Using questionnaires submitted during the 16 weeks surrounding the recall period change, we assessed the likelihood of reporting severe or moderate and severe symptoms across 12 common symptoms and separately for the 5 most prevalent symptoms. Interrupted time-series analyses modeled the effects of the change using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Surgery and chemotherapy cohorts were analyzed separately. Study-wide effects were estimated using a meta-analysis method.

RESULTS

In total, 1692 patients from 6 institutions submitted 7823 eSyM assessments during the 16 weeks surrounding the recall period change. Shortening the recall period was associated with lower odds of severe symptom reporting in the surgery cohort (odds ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval = 0.46 to 0.93; P = .02) and lower odds of moderate and severe symptom reporting in the chemotherapy cohort (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.71 to 0.97; P = .02). Among the most prevalent symptoms, 24-hour recall was associated with a lower rate of reporting postoperative constipation but no differences in reporting rates for other symptoms.

CONCLUSION

A shorter recall period was associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients reporting moderate-severe symptoms. The optimal recall period may vary depending on whether electronic patient-reported outcomes are collected for active symptom management, as a clinical trial endpoint, or another purpose. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03850912.

Electronic health record-integrated questionnaires in colorectal surgery patients as a new standard: Could preoperative bowel function be used to predict postoperative patient-reported outcomes?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported bowel function has been previously shown to correlate with quality of life and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after colorectal surgery. We examined the relationship between preoperative patient-reported bowel function and postoperative symptom reporting using an electronic health record-integrated symptom management (eSyM).

METHODS

Patients who underwent major abdominal surgery for colorectal cancer at a single institution were included. Preoperative bowel function was assessed prospectively using the validated colorectal functional outcome (COREFO) questionnaire. Patients with electronic portal access received automated eSyM questionnaires after discharge. Logistic regression was used to analyze the association between COREFO scores and eSyM use.

RESULTS

169 patients underwent surgery between April 2020 and June 2022 (median age 64, 46.7% female). 148 completed COREFO questionnaires preoperatively; 54 (36.5%) had scores ≥15. Of the 108 patients with portal access, 67.6% used eSyM postoperatively. Among users, 72.3% (47/73) reported severe symptoms. Those with COREFO scores ≥15 were more likely to use eSyM (80.0% vs. 62.7%) though this difference was not significant (p = 0.079).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that eSyM utilization regardless of preoperative baseline bowel function was high in this cohort of colorectal surgery patients. This suggests that electronically captured PROs is an effective way for patients to communicate symptoms to their care teams in a postsurgical setting.

Disparities in electronic health record portal access and use among patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Electronic health record-linked portals may improve health-care quality for patients with cancer. Barriers to portal access and use undermine interventions that rely on portals to reduce cancer care disparities. This study examined portal access and persistence of portal use and associations with patient and structural factors before the implementation of 3 portal-based interventions within the Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium.

METHODS

Portal use data were extracted from electronic health records for the 12 months preceding intervention implementation. Sociodemographic factors, mode of accessing portals (web vs mobile), and number of clinical encounters before intervention implementation were also extracted. Rurality was derived using rural-urban commuting area codes. Broadband access was estimated using the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. Multiple logistic regression models tested the associations of these factors with portal access (ever accessed or never accessed) and persistence of portal use (accessed the portal ≤20 weeks vs ≥21 weeks in the 35-week study period).

RESULTS

Of 28 942 eligible patients, 10 061 (35%) never accessed the portal. Male sex, membership in a racial and ethnic minority group, rural dwelling, not working, and limited broadband access were associated with lower odds of portal access. Younger age and more clinical encounters were associated with higher odds of portal access. Of those with portal access, 25% were persistent users. Using multiple modalities for portal access, being middle-aged, and having more clinical encounters were associated with persistent portal use.

CONCLUSION

Patient and structural factors affect portal access and use and may exacerbate disparities in electronic health record-based cancer symptom surveillance and management.

Using Implementation Science Frameworks to Guide the Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are an evidence-based means of detecting symptoms earlier and improving patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of successful implementation in routine cancer care. We conducted a qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHODS

Participants were adult patients with cancer, their caregivers, or health care professionals involved in ePRO monitoring or processes. Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted using a semistructured approach informed by the CFIR. Data were analyzed deductively using the CFIR. Barriers were matched to theory-informed implementation strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool.

RESULTS

Thirty participants were interviewed: 22 females (73%), aged 31-70 years (28, 94%), comprising patients (n = 8), caregivers (n = 2), medical oncologists (n = 4), nurses (n = 4), hospital leaders (n = 6), clinic administrators (n = 2), pharmacists (n = 2), and information technology specialists (n = 2). Barriers pertaining to four CFIR domains were identified and several were novel, including the challenge of adapting ePROs for different anticancer treatments. Facilitators pertaining to all CFIR domains were identified, such as leveraging acceptability of remote care post-COVID-19 to drive implementation. Conducting consensus discussions with stakeholders to tailor ePROs to the local setting, identifying/preparing individual and group-level champions, and assessing readiness for change (including leveraging technological advances and increased confidence in using remote monitoring post-COVID-19) were the most frequently recommended implementation strategies.

CONCLUSION

The CFIR facilitated identification of known and novel barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care. Implementation strategies summarized in a conceptual framework will be used to codesign an ePRO symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy side effects.

Strategies for Implementing an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Symptom Management Program Across Six Cancer Centers

Background

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based symptom management improves cancer patients' outcomes. However, implementation of ePROs is challenging, requiring technical resources for integration into clinical systems, substantial buy-in from clinicians and patients, novel workflows to support between-visit symptom management, and institutional investment.

Methods

The SIMPRO Research Consortium developed eSyM, an electronic health record-integrated, ePRO-based symptom management program for medical oncology and surgery patients and deployed it at six cancer centers between August 2019 and April 2022 in a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized stepped-wedge study. Sites documented implementation strategies monthly using REDCap, itemized them using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) list and mapped their target barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform eSyM program enhancement, facilitate inter-consortium knowledge sharing and guide future deployment efforts.

Results

We documented 226 implementation strategies: 35 'foundational' strategies were applied consortium-wide by the coordinating center and 191 other strategies were developed by individual sites. We consolidated these 191 site-developed strategies into 64 unique strategies (i.e., removed duplicates) and classified the remainder as either 'universal', consistently used by multiple sites (N=29), or 'adaptive', used only by individual sites (N=35). Universal strategies were perceived as having the highest impact; they addressed eSyM clinical preparation, training, engagement of patients/clinicians, and program evaluation. Across all documented SIMPRO strategies, 44 of the 73 ERIC strategies were addressed and all 5 CFIR barriers were addressed.

Conclusion

Methodical collection of theory-based implementation strategies fostered the identification of universal, high-impact strategies that facilitated adoption of a novel care-delivery intervention by patients, clinicians, and institutions. Attention to the high-impact strategies identified in this project could support implementation of ePROs as a component of routine cancer care at other institutions.

Assessing Patient Readiness for an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Symptom Management Intervention in a Multisite Study

PURPOSE

While the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in routine clinical practice is increasing, barriers to patient engagement limit adoption. Studies have focused on technology access as a key barrier, yet other characteristics may also confound readiness to use ePROs including patients' confidence in using technology and confidence in asking clinicians questions.

METHODS

To assess readiness to use ePROs, adult patients from six US-based health systems who started a new oncology treatment or underwent a cancer-directed surgery were invited to complete a survey that assessed access to and confidence in the use of technology, ease of asking clinicians questions about health, and symptom management self-efficacy. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were fit to assess the association between technology confidence, ease of asking questions, and symptom management self-efficacy.

RESULTS

We contacted 3,212 individuals, and 1,043 (33%) responded. The median age was 63 years, 68% were female, and 75% reported having access to patient portals. Over 80% had two or more electronic devices. Most patients reported high technology confidence, higher ease of asking clinicians questions, and high symptom management self-efficacy (n = 692; 66%). Patients with high technology confidence also reported higher ease of asking nurses about their health (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.58 [95% CI, 2.36 to 8.87]; P ≤ .001). Those who reported higher ease of asking nurses questions were more likely to report higher confidence in managing symptoms (AOR, 30.54 [95% CI, 12.91 to 72.30]; P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSION

Patient readiness to use ePROs likely depends on multiple factors, including technology and communication confidence, and symptom management self-efficacy. Future studies should assess interventions to address these factors.

The Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS): feasibility, usability, and pilot testing of a novel method

BACKGROUND

Systematic approaches are needed to accurately characterize the dynamic use of implementation strategies and how they change over time. We describe the development and preliminary evaluation of the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS), a novel methodology to document and characterize implementation strategies use over time.

METHODS

The development and initial evaluation of the LISTS method was conducted within the Improving the Management of SymPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Research Consortium (supported by funding provided through the NCI Cancer MoonshotSM). The IMPACT Consortium includes a coordinating center and three hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies testing routine symptom surveillance and integration of symptom management interventions in ambulatory oncology care settings. LISTS was created to increase the precision and reliability of dynamic changes in implementation strategy use over time. It includes three components: (1) a strategy assessment, (2) a data capture platform, and (3) a User's Guide. An iterative process between implementation researchers and practitioners was used to develop, pilot test, and refine the LISTS method prior to evaluating its use in three stepped-wedge trials within the IMPACT Consortium. The LISTS method was used with research and practice teams for approximately 12 months and subsequently we evaluated its feasibility, acceptability, and usability using established instruments and novel questions developed specifically for this study.

RESULTS

Initial evaluation of LISTS indicates that it is a feasible and acceptable method, with content validity, for characterizing and tracking the use of implementation strategies over time. Users of LISTS highlighted several opportunities for improving the method for use in future and more diverse implementation studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The LISTS method was developed collaboratively between researchers and practitioners to fill a research gap in systematically tracking implementation strategy use and modifications in research studies and other implementation efforts. Preliminary feedback from LISTS users indicate it is feasible and usable. Potential future developments include additional features, fewer data elements, and interoperability with alternative data entry platforms. LISTS offers a systematic method that encourages the use of common data elements to support data analysis across sites and synthesis across studies. Future research is needed to further adapt, refine, and evaluate the LISTS method in studies with employ diverse study designs and address varying delivery settings, health conditions, and intervention types.

Systematic symptom management in the IMPACT Consortium: rationale and design for 3 effectiveness-implementation trials

Cancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium's conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

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