Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as an Intervention: A Comprehensive Overview of Systematic Reviews on the Effects of Feedback

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have emerged as a promising approach to involve patients in their treatment process. Beyond serving as outcome measures, PROMs can be applied to provide feedback to healthcare providers and patients, thereby offering valuable insights that can improve health outcomes and care processes. This overview offers a comprehensive synthesis of the effects of PROM feedback, contributing to the evidence-based discussion on PROMs' potential to enhance patient care.

METHODS

Following Cochrane Collaboration recommendations, this overview included literature reviews across diverse treatment areas, investigating the impact of PROM feedback on patient health outcomes (including quality of life, symptoms, or survival) and care process outcomes (including communication, symptom identification, or clinical practice). The methodological quality of the evidence was assessed with a modified version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2, and the potential overlap of primary studies was quantified. Results were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Forty reviews grouped into 4 categories of treatment areas were included. Overall, their methodological quality was low. The overall overlap of primary studies was 2.2%, reaching up to 15.7% within specific treatment areas. The results indicate that PROM feedback may enhance the quality-of-care processes, whereas its effects on patient health outcomes remained less conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

PROM feedback positively influences the interaction between physicians and patients across the included treatment areas. Further research is needed to comprehend the trickle-down effects of PROM feedback and how to enhance its potential in yielding health benefits for patients.

Moving beyond barriers: a mixed-method study to develop evidence-based strategies to improve implementation of PROMs in clinical oncology care

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify feasible, evidence-based strategies to improve the use of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) implemented in clinical oncology practice.

METHODS

A mixed-method study involving observations of consultations and semi-structured interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) was conducted to identify facilitators and barriers for using PROMs; barriers and facilitators were structured following the Theoretical Domains Framework. For each barrier, evidence-based improvement strategies were selected using the Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy v1. Subsequently, improvement strategies were ranked on priority and feasibility by an expert panel of HCPs, information technology professionals, and PROMs implementation specialists, creating an implementation improvement strategy.

RESULTS

Ten consultations were observed and 14 interviews conducted. Barriers for implementation included that the electronic health record and PROMs did not align to the individual needs of end users, the HCPs' hesitance to advice patients about health-related quality-of-life issues, and a lack of consensus on which HCPs were responsible for discussing PROMs with patients. Forty-one improvement strategies were identified, of which 25 remained after ranking. These included: redesigning the PROMs dashboard by including patient management advice, enhancing patient support to complete PROMs, and clarifying HCPs' responsibilities for discussing PROMs. Strategies currently considered less feasible were: improving user-friendliness of the patient portal due to technical constraints, aligning PROMs assessment frequency with clinical courses, and using baseline PROMs for early identification of vulnerabilities and supportive care needs. These will be studied in future research.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based improvement strategies to ensure lasting adoption of PROMs in clinical practice were identified.

Introduction and validation of the open symptom framework: a public domain modular framework for patient-reported measurement of symptoms related to cancer and its treatment

PURPOSE

We provide an initial description and validation of some public domain patient-reported outcome (PRO) items to assess cancer symptom burden to address immediate barriers to symptom assessment use in clinical practice and facilitate future research.

METHODS

We created the Open Symptom Framework (OSF), a flexible tool for clinical cancer-related symptom assessment. The items comprise six components: recall period, concept, symptom, qualifier(s), a definition, and a 5-point Likert-type response. We recruited patients receiving cancer therapy in the United States and United Kingdom. We assessed external construct validity by comparing OSF scores to the PRO-CTCAE measure and assessed reliability, scalability, dimensionality, and item ordering within a non-parametric item response theory framework. We tested differential item functioning for country, age, gender, and level of education.

RESULTS

We developed a framework alongside clinical and psychometric experts and debrieifed with 10 patients. For validation, we recruited 331patients. All items correlated with the PRO-CTCAE equivalents (r = 0.55-0.96, all p < 0.01). Mokken analysis confirmed the scalability and unidimensionality of all symptom scales with multiple items at the scale (Ho = 0.61-0.75) and item level (Hi = 0.60-0.76). Items are interpreted consistently between demographic groups (Crit = 0 for all groups).

CONCLUSION

The public domain OSF has excellent psychometric properties including face, content, and criterion validity and can facilitate the development of flexible, robust measurements to fulfil stakeholder need. The OSF was designed specifically to support clinical assessment but will function well for research. Further work is planned to increase the number of symptoms and number of questions per symptom within the framework.

A Digital Therapeutic Application (ePAL) to Manage Pain in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer often experience immense cancer pain that negatively impacts their quality of life. Interventions to address cancer-related pain are limited.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial of a digital therapeutic app (ePAL) for patients with advanced cancer receiving care in a specialty palliative care clinic at a tertiary care hospital. Patients were randomized to ePAL or usual care. ePAL included 1) active pain monitoring; 2) artificial intelligence algorithm to triage patient symptoms; and 3) patient education to address barriers to pain management. Participants were instructed to use ePAL over eight weeks. Patient-reported pain symptoms were assessed at baseline, Week-4, and Week-8 (primary endpoint) using the Brief Pain Inventory. Secondary outcomes include pain-related hospitalizations by Week-8.

RESULTS

We enrolled 112 patients who were randomly assigned to ePAL (N = 56) or usual care (N = 56). Patients utilized ePAL on average 2.1 times per week to report pain symptoms, and 47.6% reported their pain at least once per week over eight weeks. Patients randomized to ePAL reported lower pain scores at Week-4 (mean: 3.16 vs. 4.28, P = 0.010) and week-8 (mean:2.99 vs. 4.05, P = 0.017), compared to those receiving usual care. Participants randomized to ePAL were less likely to experience a pain-related hospitalization compared to those in the usual care group (7.1% vs. 23.2% P = 0.018) CONCLUSIONS: ePAL was associated with lower patient-reported pain and fewer pain-related hospitalizations compared to usual care in patients with advanced cancer. This study demonstrates the promise of digital therapeutics for improving patients' symptoms while reducing burdensome hospitalizations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The feasibility and acceptability of collecting psychosocial outcome measures embedded within a precision medicine trial for childhood cancer

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are increasingly being collected within cancer clinical trials, yet limited literature on the feasibility and acceptability of doing so.

METHODS

We collected parent-proxy and adolescent (≥12 years old) PROMs through a longitudinal, psychosocial sub-study ('PRISM-Impact') embedded in a precision medicine trial for children with poor prognosis cancer ('PRISM'). We report on feasibility (response, participation, and attrition rates; follow-up and responding to elevated distress) and acceptability (parents' perceived benefit/burden of participation; and impact on decision to participate in PRISM) of PRISM-Impact.

RESULTS

Over the reporting period, 462 families were eligible for PRISM-Impact. Family and adolescent response rates were 53% and 45%, respectively. Parents whose child had relapsed were more likely to participate in PRISM-Impact than parents whose child had not (p < 0.001). Parent and adolescent attrition rates were 30% and 56% respectively. We conducted 478 calls for intake and to follow-up on missing questionnaires, and 122 calls to respond to elevated distress. Parents reported wanting to participate in PRISM-Impact for altruistic reasons and because they valued psychosocial research. Parents reported little-to-no burden and some benefit from participating in PRISM-Impact, with little change in ratings overtime. Most parents felt that participating in PRISM-Impact did not impact their desire to participate in PRISM (72%), with some feeling more eager to participate (19%).

CONCLUSIONS

PRISM-Impact response rates were comparable to other psycho-oncology studies, despite the poor prognosis population. Integration of PROMs within a paediatric oncology trial is acceptable to parents, and may provide a more comprehensive assessment of the impact of trial participation.

Addressing social needs in oncology care: another research-to-practice gap

Social determinants of health and unmet social needs are directly related to cancer outcomes, from diagnosis to survivorship. If identified, unmet social needs can be addressed in oncology care by changing care plans in collaboration with patients' preferences and accounting for clinical practice guidelines (eg, reducing the frequency of appointments, switching treatment modalities) and connecting patients to resources within healthcare organizations (eg, social work support, patient navigation) and with community organizations (eg, food banks, housing assistance programs). Screening for social needs is the first step to identifying those who need additional support and is increasingly recognized as a necessary component of high-quality cancer care delivery. Despite evidence about the relationship between social needs and cancer outcomes and the abundance of screening tools, the implementation of social needs screening remains a challenge, and little is known regarding the adoption, reach, and sustainability of social needs screening in routine clinical practice. We present data on the adoption and implementation of social needs screening at two large academic cancer centers and discuss three challenges associated with implementing evidence-based social needs screening in clinical practice: (1) identifying an optimal approach for administering social needs screening in oncology care, (2) adequately addressing identified unmet needs with resources and support, and (3) coordinating social needs screening between oncology and primary care.

Seizing the moment: The time for harnessing electronic patient-reported outcome measures for enhanced and sustainable metastatic breast cancer care is now

The sustainability of healthcare systems is under pressure. Unlike care for many other chronic diseases, cancer care has yet to empower patients in effectively self-managing both the medical and emotional consequences of their condition, including adapting to changes in lifestyle and work, which is essential to achieve optimal health and recovery. Although proposed as a potential solution for sustainable healthcare and support for optimal health and recovery already decades ago, practical implementation of digital care lags behind. We believe electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) could play an important role in creating sustainable healthcare, both to guide complex treatment pathways and to empower survivors to self-manage consequences of diagnosis and treatment. That is, ePROMs can be used for screening and monitoring of symptoms, but also for treatment decision-making and to facilitate communication about quality of life. We therefore see opportunities for improvements in quality of care, quality of life, and survival of cancer patients, as well as research opportunities, as ePROMs collection can lead to better understanding of care needs. The '10 Actions for Change report' of the Advanced Breast Cancer Global Alliance stresses a critical need for improvement of care for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. We therefore in this paper focus on MBC care and research.

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.

Real-world use and clinical impact of an electronic patient-reported outcome tool in patients with solid tumors treated with immuno-oncology therapy

BACKGROUND

Utilization of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools to monitor symptoms in patients undergoing cancer treatment has shown clinical benefits. Tennessee Oncology (TO) implemented an ePRO platform in 2019, allowing patients to report their health status online. We conducted a real-world, multicenter, observational, non-interventional cohort study to evaluate utilization of this platform in adults with solid tumors who initiated immuno-oncology (IO) therapy as monotherapy or in combination at TO clinics.

METHODS

Patients initiating IO therapy prior to platform implementation were included in a historical control (HC) cohort; those initiating treatment after implementation were included in the ePRO cohort, which was further divided into ePRO users (platform enrollment ≤ 45 days from IO initiation) and non-users. Data were extracted from electronic medical records; patients were followed for up to 6 months (no minimum follow up). Outcomes included patient characteristics, treatment patterns, duration of therapy (DoT), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Data were collected for 538 patients in the HC and 1014 in the ePRO cohort; 319 in the ePRO cohort were ePRO users (uptake rate 31%). Baseline age was higher, more patients had stage IV disease at diagnosis, and more received monotherapy (82 vs 52%, respectively) in the HC vs the ePRO cohort. Median follow-up was 181.0 days (range 0.0-182.6) in the HC and 175.0 (0.0-184.0) in the ePRO cohort. Median DoT of index IO regimen was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-NE) in the HC cohort vs not estimable (NE) in the ePRO cohort. Multivariable regression adjusting for baseline differences confirmed lower risk of treatment discontinuation in the ePRO vs HC cohort: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.97); p < 0.05. The estimated 6-month OS rate was 65.5% in the HC vs 72.4% in the ePRO cohort (p < 0 .01). Within the ePRO cohort, DoT of index IO regimen and OS did not differ between users and non-users. In ePRO users, patient platform use was durable over 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in DoT and OS were seen after ePRO platform implementation. Conclusions are limited by challenges in separating the impact of platform implementation from other changes affecting outcomes.

Interventions for Concerning Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine cancer care improves patient-clinician communication, decision making, and overall patient satisfaction. Recommendations exist regarding standardized ways to collect, store, and interpret PRO data. However, evidence on incorporating PROs into cancer process of care, especially the type of HIs that are warranted after observing a concerning PRO and the effectiveness of these HIs are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study summarizes HIs triggered after PRO completion and their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes for adults being treated for cancer types that are resource intensive and associated with high symptom burden [i.e., gastrointestinal (GI), lung, and head and neck cancer (HNC)]. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with poor implementation of PROs.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A literature search of peer-reviewed publications on MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, APA PsycInfo, Scopus, and Cochrane was conducted following PRISMA guidelines from 1 January 2012, to 31 July 2022. Trial and real-world studies describing HIs after PRO completion for adult patients being treated for GI, lung, and HNC were included. Sixteen studies involving 144,496 patients were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist was used to assess risk of bias.

FINDINGS

Of the 16 included studies, 5 included patients with HNC. Commonly used PRO measurement tools were the PRO-CTCAE and ESAS. Only three studies reported specific HIs delivered in response to concerning PROs and measured their effectiveness on patient outcomes. In all three studies, these HIs significantly improved cancer-related care. The most common HIs undertaken in response to concerning PROs were referrals to other specialists/allied healthcare professionals, medication changes, or self-management advice. Provider-related barriers to PRO measurement and delivery included the overwhelming number of alerts, the time required to address each PRO and the unclear role of healthcare providers in response to these alerts. Patient-related barriers included lower digital literacy and socioeconomic status, older age, rural living, and patients suffering from GI and HNC.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review highlights that PRO-triggered HIs are heterogenous and can improve patient quality of life. Further studies are necessary to determine the types of interventions with the greatest impact on patient care and outcomes.

A pre-implementation examination of barriers and facilitators of an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

An electronic Prospective Surveillance Model (ePSM) uses patient-reported outcomes to monitor symptoms along the cancer pathway for timely identification and treatment. Randomized controlled trials show that ePSMs can effectively manage treatment-related adverse effects. However, an understanding of optimal approaches for implementing these systems into routine cancer care is limited. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators prior to the implementation of an ePSM to inform the selection of implementation strategies.

METHODS

A qualitative study using virtual focus groups and individual interviews was conducted with cancer survivors, oncology healthcare providers, and clinic leadership across four cancer centres in Canada. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the interviews and analysis of barriers and facilitators based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process).

RESULTS

We conducted 13 focus groups and nine individual interviews with 13 patient participants and 56 clinic staff. Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 18 were identified as relevant determinants to the implementation. The adaptability, relative advantage, and complexity of an ePSM emerged as key intervention-level factors that could influence implementation. Knowledge of the system was important at the individual level. Within the inner setting, major determinants were the potential fit of an ePSM with clinical workflows (compatibility) and the resources that could be dedicated to the implementation effort (readiness for implementation). In the outer setting, meeting the needs of patients and the availability of rehabilitation supports were key determinants. Engaging various stakeholders was critical at the process level.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving the implementation of ePSMs in routine cancer care has the potential to facilitate early identification and management of treatment-related adverse effects, thereby improving quality of life. This study provides insight into important factors that may influence the implementation of an ePSM, which can be used to select appropriate implementation strategies to address these factors.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Improve the Care Continuum for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Opportunities and Implications for Nursing Practice

OBJECTIVES

Albeit treatable, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains incurable. To achieve remaining life years lived well, extended survival should be balanced with optimal health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and timely initiated supportive, palliative, and end-of-life care. The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) Global Alliance identified 10 urgent and actionable goals for the decade between 2015 and 2025 to achieve substantial improvement in the lives of patients living with ABC, including MBC. Enhancements are needed for HRQoL, research, quality of care, and survival. We explore the potential of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in addressing these gaps and aim to describe opportunities and current initiatives for improving the MBC care continuum through PROMs.

DATA SOURCES

Narrative description of recent literature on MBC and PROMs.

CONCLUSION

We believe PROMs can make valuable contributions to seven of the 10 goals described: 1) enhancing the understanding of MBC through high-quality data collection, 2) improving HRQoL and raising consideration of survival versus HRQoL, 2) prolonging survival, 4) increasing referral to nonclinical support services, 5) supporting patient-healthcare provider communication, 6) encouraging improvements in healthcare access, and 7) supporting meeting patients' informational needs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Maximizing the benefits of PROMs requires effective implementation. Because nurses and nurse practitioners are at the forefront of care, they can offer a comprehensive understanding of patients' needs and play a crucial role in facilitating the integration of PROMs into routine care for MBC patients and ultimately optimizing patients' outcomes and life years and months left.

Adherence to Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring and Subsequent Clinical Interventions for Patients With Multiple Myeloma in Outpatient Care: Longitudinal Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The use of software to monitor patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can improve outcomes for patients with cancer receiving anticancer therapy; however, evidence from applications used in routine clinical practice is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate adherence to and patient perceptions of a weekly, web-based PROM symptom monitoring program in routine clinical practice for patients with Multiple Myeloma. Moreover, we aimed to capture how clinical alerts prompted by the system influenced clinical care.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center longitudinal observational study to evaluate patient adherence to and perceptions of the PROM monitoring software in routine practice. Patients with Multiple Myeloma remotely completed weekly treatment-specific PROMs to monitor key symptoms via a dedicated web-based platform. Alarming symptoms triggered clinical alerts in the application for the treatment team, which could initiate clinical interventions. The primary outcomes were the web-based assessment completion rate and patients' perceptions of the monitoring program, as assessed by an evaluation questionnaire. Moreover, clinical alerts prompted by the system and consequential clinical interventions were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between July 2021 and June 2022, a total of 55 patients were approached for participation; 39 patients participated (24, 61% male, mean age 63.2, SD 9.2 years). The median assessment completion rate out of all weekly scheduled assessments was 70.3% (IQR 41.2%-89.6%). Most patients (77%) felt that the health care team was better informed about their health status due to the web-based assessments. Clinical alerts were triggered for 1758 of 14,639 (12%) reported symptoms. For 548 of 1758 (31.2%) alerts, the symptom had been registered before and no further action was required; for 348 of 1758 (19.9%) alerts, telephone consultation and self-management advice sufficed. Higher-level interventions were seldom needed in response to alerts: referral to a doctor or specialist (88/1758, 5% alerts), medication changes (22/1758, 1.3%), scheduling additional diagnostics (9/1758, 0.5%), or unplanned emergency visits (7/1758, 0.4%). Most patients (55%) reported the calls in response to alerts gave them "quite a bit" or "very much" of an added feeling of security during therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that high adherence to regular and tailored PROM monitoring can be achieved in routine clinical care. The findings provide valuable insight into how the PROM monitoring program and the clinical alerts and resulting interventions shaped clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05036863; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05036863.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring in Gastrointestinal Surgery

INTRODUCTION

More than 30% of patients experience complications after major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, many of which occur after discharge when patients and families must assume responsibility for monitoring. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been proposed as a tool for remote monitoring to identify deviations in recovery, and recognize and manage complications earlier. This study's objective was to characterize barriers and facilitators to the use of PROs as a patient monitoring tool following GI surgery.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with GI surgery patients and clinicians (surgeons, nurses, and advanced practitioners). Patients and clinicians were asked to describe their experience using a PRO monitoring system in three surgical oncology clinics. Using a phenomenological approach, research team dyads independently coded the transcripts using an inductively developed codebook and the constant comparative approach with differences reconciled by consensus.

RESULTS

Ten patients and five clinicians participated in the interviews. We identified four overarching themes related to functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability. Functionality refers to barriers faced by clinicians and patients in using the PRO technology. Workflow represents problematic integration of PROs into the clinical workflow and need for setting expectations with patients. Meaningfulness refers to lack of patient and clinician understanding of the impact of PROs on patient care. Finally, actionability reflects barriers to follow-up and practical use of PRO data.

CONCLUSIONS

While use of PRO systems for postoperative patient monitoring have expanded, significant barriers persist for both patients and clinicians. Implementation enhancements are needed to optimize functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability.

Outcome Measures and Patient-Reported Metrics in Cancer Rehabilitation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current panorama of measurement tools for use in cancer rehabilitation is reviewed. For rehabilitation purposes, evaluating function is of the highest priority.

RECENT FINDINGS

From a patient-reported outcome (PRO) standpoint, SF-36 and EORTC-QLQ-C30 are in most common use in cancer rehabilitation research; these are quality of life measures that contain functional subdomains. Newer tools which are based on item response theory and have options for both computer assisted or short form (SF) administration, including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Activity Measure for Post-acute Care (AMPAC) instruments, show increasing use, especially PROMIS Physical Function SF, and, recently, PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D, which has been validated in the cancer population, with domains of physical function, fatigue, and social participation, to track clinical rehabilitation outcomes. Evaluating objective measures of function in cancer patients is also crucial. Utilization of clinically feasible tools for cancer rehabilitation, to employ for both screening purposes and for monitoring of rehabilitation treatment efficacy, is an evolving area, much needed to promote further research and improved, consistent clinical care for cancer patients and survivors.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a major global health problem. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) systems have been developed to support the treatment of patients with cancer. Although clear evidence of the benefits of the routine use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) exists, engaging physicians in using these systems has been challenging.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify and analyze what is currently known about health care professionals' (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators that exist and influence the use of ePRO systems for cancer care.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic mapping study by conducting searches of 3 databases (Association for Computing Machinery, PubMed, and Scopus). Eligible papers were published between 2010 and 2021, and they described HCPs' perspectives on using ePROs. The data on the included papers were extracted, a thematic meta-synthesis was performed, and 7 themes were summarized into 3 categories.

RESULTS

A total of 17 papers were included in the study. The HCPs' perceived barriers and facilitators of using ePROs can be summarized into 7 themes: clinical workflow, organization and infrastructure, value to patients, value to HCPs, digital health literacy, usability, and data visualization and perceived features. These themes can be further summarized into 3 categories: work environment, value to users, and suggested features. According to the study, ePROs should be interoperable with hospital electronic health records and adapted to the hospital workflow. HCPs should get appropriate support for their use. Additional features are needed for ePROs, and special attention should be paid to data visualization. Patients should have the option to use web-based ePROs at home and complete it at the time most valuable to the treatment. Patients' ePRO notes need attention during clinical visits, but ePRO use should not limit patient-clinician face-to-face communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that several aspects need improvement in ePROs and their operating environments. By improving these aspects, HCPs' experience with ePROs will enhance, and thus, there will be more facilitating factors for HCPs to use ePROs than those available today. More national and international knowledge about using ePROs is still needed to cover the need for information to develop them and their operating environments to meet the needs of HCPs.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Trial registration

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

Patient-reported outcomes from the phase 3 ADMIRAL trial in patients with FLT3-mutated relapsed/refractory AML

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform treatment selection and assess treatment value in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We evaluated PROs from the ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939) in patients with FLT3-mutated relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML. PRO instruments consisted of Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Dyspnea Short Form (FACIT-Dys SF), EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and leukemia treatment-specific symptom questionnaires. Clinically significant effects on fatigue were observed with gilteritinib during the first two treatment cycles. Shorter survival was associated with clinically significant worsening of BFI, FACT-Leu, FACIT-Dys SF, and EQ-5D-5L measures. Transplantation and transfusion independence in gilteritinib-arm patients were also associated with maintenance or improvement in PROs. Health-related quality of life remained stable in the gilteritinib arm. Hospitalization had a small but significant effect on patient-reported fatigue. Gilteritinib was associated with a favorable effect on fatigue and other PROs in patients with FLT3-mutated R/R AML.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To perform a scoping review on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in randomized trials on systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between 2010 and 2021.

METHODS

First, a search on clinicaltrials.gov was performed, looking for randomized trials in mCRC. The use of PROMs was analyzed quantitatively. Subsequently, we assessed the completeness of PROM reporting based on the CONSORT PRO extension in publications related to the selected trials acquired using Embase and PubMed.

RESULTS

A total of 46/176 trials were registered on clinicaltrials.gov used PROMs. All these trials used validated PROM instruments. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (37 times), followed by the EQ-5D (21 times) and the EORTC QLQ-CR29 (six times). A total of 56/176 registered trials were published. In 35% (n = 20), the results of the PROMs were available. Overall, 7/20 (35%) trials documented all items of the CONSORT PRO extension and quality of reporting according to the CONSORT PRO extension was higher than in the period 2004-2012. In 3/20 (15%) of the published trials, the results of PROMs were not discussed nor included in the positioning of the new treatment compared to the reference treatment.

CONCLUSION

When PROMs are used, the quality of reporting on patient-reported outcomes is improving, but this must continue in order to optimize the translation of trial results to individual patient values.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Supplementary Information

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

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

A multinational investigation of healthcare needs, preferences, and expectations in supportive cancer care: co-creating the LifeChamps digital platform

Purpose

This study is to evaluate healthcare needs, preferences, and expectations in supportive cancer care as perceived by cancer survivors, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals.

Methods

Key stakeholders consisted of cancer survivors diagnosed with breast cancer, prostate cancer, or melanoma; adult family caregivers; and healthcare professionals involved in oncology. Recruitment was via several routes, and data were collected via either online surveys or telephone interviews in Greece, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Framework analysis was applied to the dataset.

Results

One hundred and fifty-five stakeholders participated: 70 cancer survivors, 23 family caregivers, and 62 healthcare professionals (13 clinical roles). Cancer survivors and family caregivers’ needs included information and support on practical/daily living, as frustration was apparent with the lack of follow-up services. Healthcare professionals agreed on a multidisciplinary health service with a “focus on the patient” and availability closer to home. Most healthcare professionals acknowledged that patient-reported outcomes may provide “better individualised care”. Cancer survivors and family caregivers generally felt that the digital platform would be useful for timely personalised support and aided communication. Healthcare professionals were supportive of the “proactive” functionality of the platform and the expected advantages. Anticipated challenges were integration obstacles such as workload/infrastructure and training/support in using the new technology.

Conclusions

Obtaining key stakeholders’ insights provided a foundation for action to further co-create the LifeChamps digital platform to meet needs and priorities and deliver enhanced supportive care to “older” cancer survivors.

Implications for cancer survivors

Co-creation provided insight into gaps where digital support may enhance health and well-being.

Managing Critical Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Oncology Settings: System Development and Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Remote monitoring programs based on the collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are being increasingly adopted in oncology practices. Although PROs are a great source of patient data, the management of critical PRO data is not discussed in detail in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

This first-of-its-kind study aimed to design, describe, and evaluate a closed-loop alerting and communication system focused on managing PRO-related alerts in cancer care.

METHODS

We designed and developed a novel solution using an agile software development methodology by incrementally building new capabilities. We evaluated these new features using participatory design and the Fit between Individuals, Task, and Technology framework.

RESULTS

A total of 8 questionnaires were implemented using alerting features, resulting in an alert rate of 7.82% (36,838/470,841) with 13.28% (10,965/82,544) of the patients triggering at least one alert. Alerts were reviewed by 501 staff members spanning across 191 care teams. All the alerts were reviewed with a median response time of 1 hour (SD 185 hours) during standard business hours. The most severe (red) alerts were documented 56.83% (2592/4561) of the time, whereas unlabeled alerts were documented 27.68% (1298/4689) of the time, signaling clinician concordance with the alert thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

A PRO-based alert and communication system has some initial benefits in reviewing clinically meaningful PRO data in a reasonable amount of time. We have discussed key system design considerations, workflow integration, and the mitigation of potential impact on the burden of care teams. The introduction of a PRO-based alert and communication system provides a reliable mechanism for care teams to review and respond to patient symptoms quickly. The system was standardized across many different oncology settings, demonstrating system flexibility. Future studies should focus on formally evaluating system usability through qualitative methods.

Examining the impact of physical function performance in predicting patient outcomes after lung-sparing surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of physical function performance and pulmonary function on patient outcomes after lung-sparing surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 54 patients with MPM from 2015 to 2020 was performed. The primary objective was to assess whether physical function, as measured by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG), and pulmonary function tests were predictive of postoperative patient outcomes (ventilator days, chest tube days, hospital length of stay). A secondary objective was to explore demographic and preoperative variables that best predict postoperative physical function and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Data include 54 patients who underwent extended pleurectomy-decortication. Preoperative ECOG was a significant predictor of postoperative patient outcomes while preoperative lung function lacked predictive ability. Preoperative ECOG was also predictive of preoperative lung function. Age on the day of surgery was the best predictor of postoperative physical function, which was significantly reduced postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative physical function performance was a significant predictor of postoperative outcomes. The results of our study highlight the importance of physical function in patients with MPM and support the need for early rehabilitation and further research to determine optimal rehabilitation interventions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPreoperative physical function can predict outcomes after lung-sparing surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).Physical function in patients with MPM should be carefully examined.To accurately reflect patients' abilities, patient assessment should include both patient-reported outcomes and performance-based measures.Patients with MPM should receive rehabilitation early after diagnosis and throughout the continuum of care.

Tracking dynamic changes in implementation strategies over time within a hybrid type 2 trial of an electronic patient-reported oncology symptom and needs monitoring program

Background

Longitudinal tracking of implementation strategies is critical in accurately reporting when and why they are used, for promoting rigor and reproducibility in implementation research, and could facilitate generalizable knowledge if similar methods are used across research projects. This article focuses on tracking dynamic changes in the use of implementation strategies over time within a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial of an evidence-based electronic patient-reported oncology symptom assessment for cancer patient-reported outcomes in a single large healthcare system.

Methods

The Longitudinal Implementation Strategies Tracking System (LISTS), a timeline follow-back procedure for documenting strategy use and modifications, was applied to the multiyear study. The research team used observation, study records, and reports from implementers to complete LISTS in an electronic data entry system. Types of modifications and reasons were categorized. Determinants associated with each strategy were collected as a justification for strategy use and a potential explanation for strategy modifications.

Results

Thirty-four discrete implementation strategies were used and at least one strategy was used from each of the nine strategy categories from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy. Most of the strategies were introduced, used, and continued or discontinued according to a prospective implementation plan. Relatedly, a small number of strategies were introduced, the majority unplanned, because of the changing healthcare landscape, or to address an emergent barrier. Despite changing implementation context, there were relatively few modifications to the way strategies were enacted, such as a change in the actor, action, or dose. Few differences were noted between the trial's three regional units under investigation.

Conclusion

This study occurred within the ambulatory oncology clinics of a large, academic medical center and was supported by the Quality team of the health system to ensure greater uptake, uniformity, and implementation within established practice change processes. The centralized nature of the implementation likely contributed to the relatively low proportion of modified strategies and the high degree of uniformity across regions. These results demonstrate the potential of LISTS in gathering the level of data needed to understand the impact of the many implementation strategies used to support adoption and delivery of a multilevel innovation.

Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04014751, identifier: NCT04014751.

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

Aim

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

Subject and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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

Valued Outcomes in the Cancer Experience (VOICE)™: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of perceived control

Objective

Enhancing cancer patients’ sense of control can positively impact psychological well-being. We developed and assessed the psychometric properties of Valued Outcomes in the Cancer Experience (VOICE)TM, a measure of patients’ perceived control over key personal priorities within their cancer experience.

Methods

VOICE construction and testing were completed in three phases with separate participant samples: (1) item generation and initial item pool testing (N = 459), (2) scale refinement (N = 623), and (3) confirmatory validation (N = 515).

Results

A 21-item measure was developed that captures cancer patients’ sense of control in seven key domains: (1) Purpose and Meaning, (2) Functional Capacity, (3) Longevity, (4) Quality Care, (5) Illness Knowledge, (6) Social Support, and (7) Financial Capability. VOICE demonstrated adequate internal consistency (full-scale α = 0.93; factor α = 0.67–0.89) and adequate to strong convergent and discriminatory validity.

Significance of results

VOICE measures cancer patients’ perceived control across a diverse range of personal priorities, creating a platform for elevating patient perspectives and identifying pathways to enhance patient well-being. VOICE is positioned to guide understanding of the patient experience and aid the development and evaluation of supportive care interventions to enhance well-being.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in trials of diabetes in pregnancy: A systematic review

AIMS

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of the patient's health status that come directly from the patient without interpretation by the clinician or anyone else. They are increasingly used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this systematic review we identified RCTs conducted in women with diabetes in pregnancy which included PROs in their primary or secondary outcomes. We then evaluated the quality of PRO reporting against an internationally accepted reporting framework (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-PRO) guidelines).

METHODS

We searched online databases for studies published 2013-2021 using a combination of keywords. Two authors reviewed all abstracts independently. Data on study characteristics and the quality of PRO reporting were extracted from relevant studies. We conducted a multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with high quality reporting.

RESULTS

We identified 7122 citations. Thirty-five articles were included for review. Only 17% of RCTs included a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. Out of a maximum score of 100 the median score was 46, indicating sub-optimal reporting. A multiple regression analysis did not reveal any factors associated with high quality reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should be mindful of the importance of PRO inclusion and reporting and include reliable PROs in trials.

Saving time and effort: Best practice for adapting existing patient-reported outcome measures in hepatology

It is increasingly recognised that collecting patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is an important part of healthcare and should be considered alongside traditional clinical assessments. As part of a more holistic view of healthcare provision, there has been an increased drive to implement PROM collection as part of routine clinical care in hepatology. This drive has resulted in an increase in the number of PROMs currently developed to be used in various liver conditions. However, the development and validation of a new PROM is time-consuming and costly. Therefore, before deciding to develop a new PROM, researchers should consider identifying existing PROMs to assess their appropriateness and, if necessary, make adaptations to existing PROMs to ensure their rigour when used with the target population. Little is written in the literature on how to identify and adapt the existing PROMs in hepatology. This article aims to provide a summary of the current literature and guidance regarding identifying and adapting existing PROMs in clinical practice.

Implementing patient-reported outcomes into routine care: an audit of cancer patients from two local health districts in New South Wales to understand their capabilities and preferences

ObjectiveIt has been established that the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care provides significant benefits to patients, providers and health services. However, there are patient-level barriers that must be identified and addressed for the successful implementation of PROMs. This study aimed to understand the capabilities and preferences of our cancer patient population prior to implementation of electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs). Specifically, we conducted a clinic audit to determine the proportion of patients in clinics with access to out-of-clinic internet; those preferring to complete PROMs on paper or via an electronic device; those capable of completing PROMs in English; and those anticipating requiring assistance to complete PROMs.MethodsPatients receiving cancer treatment or follow-up care at two Local Health Districts (LHDs) in New South Wales, Australia, completed a questionnaire (audit form) with items about internet and mobile access, communication preferences and assistance needed to complete PROMs. Participant demographic and treatment information were extracted from their electronic medical records.ResultsAcross both LHDs, 637 of 1668 participants (38%) completed the audit forms. Mean participant age was 65 years (range = 23-98), 53% were female, and 92% were outpatients. Patients in the two LHDs differed in their levels of internet and email access, and ability to complete PROMs independently in English, suggesting that some LHD-specific tailoring of implementation strategies is necessary to optimise ePROMs uptake.ConclusionThis study highlights the importance of understanding the specific local contexts and patient populations, including potential technology and language barriers, which can influence patient ability to complete ePROMs.

Integrating patient- and caregiver-reported outcome measures into the daily care routines of specialised outpatient palliative care: a qualitative study (ELSAH) on feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness

BACKGROUND

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and caregiver-reported outcome measures can raise the patient centeredness of treatment and improve the quality of palliative care. Nevertheless, the everyday implementation of self-report in patients and caregivers is complex, and should be adapted for use in specific settings. We aimed to implement a set of outcome measures that included patient and caregiver self- and proxy-reported outcome measures in specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In this study, we explore how the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC) and the Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI-7) can be feasibly, acceptably and appropriately implemented in the daily care routines of SOPC.

METHODS

Five SOPC teams were trained, and used the outcome measures in daily practice. Team members were mainly nurses and physicians. To investigate their feedback, we used a multi-method qualitative design consisting of focus groups with SOPC-team members (n = 14), field notes of meetings and conversations with the SOPC teams. In an iterative process, we analysed the findings using qualitative content analysis and refined use of the outcome measures.

RESULTS

We found that integrating patient and caregiver outcome measures into daily care routines in SOPC is feasible. To improve feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness, the resulting burden on patients and relatives should be kept to a minimum, the usefulness of the measures must be understood, they should be used considerately, and administration must be manageable. We removed ZBI-7 from the set of measures as a result of feedback on its content and wording.

CONCLUSIONS

SOPC-team members have reservations about the implementation of PROM in SOPC, but with appropriate adjustments, its application in daily care is feasible, accepted and perceived as appropriate. Previous to use, SOPC-team members should be trained in how to apply the measures, in the design of manageable processes that include integration into electronic documentation systems, and in ongoing evaluation and support. They should also be taught how useful the measures can be.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

May 19th, 2017, German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421 .

Barriers and Opportunities for Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation: A National Pediatrician Survey in the United States

Purpose: To characterize pediatricians’ perceived barriers and areas of confidence in assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the U.S., and to test associations of these factors with implementing PRO assessment. Methods: Using a random sample from the members of American Medical Association, we recruited general pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists to complete a survey (July 2011 to December 2013). Perceived barriers and confidence in PRO assessment were compared by age, pediatric specialty (general pediatrics, seven subspecialties), practice settings (academic, private), and region of practice. Multivariable logistic regressions tested associations of demographic factors, barriers, and confidence factors with the implementation of PRO assessment. Findings: The survey was completed by 458 participants (response rate 48.5%); of these, 40.4%, 15.9%, 15.5%, and 8.1% were general pediatricians, cardiology, hematology/oncology, and pulmonary specialists, respectively. PRO assessment was implemented by 29.0% of the pediatricians. The top five barriers for PRO assessment included limited time/manpower (79.0%), limited training (77.4%), lengthy PRO instruments (76%), lack of meaningful cut-offs on PRO scores (75.5%), and unavailable PRO instruments (75.0%). Limited knowledge of PROs (OR 4.10; 95% CI 2.21, 7.60) and unavailability of PRO instruments (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.01, 3.49) increased the odds of not implementing the assessment, whereas confidence in PRO assessments compatible with norms (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23, 0.72) and perceived benefit over clinical judgment alone (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31, 0.93) decreased the odds of not implementing the assessment. Interpretation: significant barriers to PRO assessment in pediatric settings suggest the need for providing training, resources, and practical guidance toward implementation. Patient or Public Contribution: healthcare service users contributed to this study by completing a survey and providing feedback about the barriers and areas of confidence in assessing PROs for pediatric populations.

Trajectory of health-related quality of life during the last year of life in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to assess the trajectory of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during the last year of life in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to explore when and to what degree deterioration of symptoms and physical functioning accelerate towards the end of life.

METHODS

Data from two RCTs of first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC was analyzed. HRQOL was assessed repeatedly using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13. Changes in HRQOL scores were investigated relative to the time of death.

RESULTS

The study sample included 730 patients, with a median of four HRQOL assessments per patient (range 1-9). Fatigue, dyspnea, appetite loss, and cough were the most pronounced symptoms in all phases of the disease trajectory. The deterioration rates of global quality of life, physical function, and key symptoms were relatively slow until 4 months before death. Then, the decline accelerated, and for physical function, fatigue, and dyspnea, there was a very rapid decline in the last 2 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with advanced NSCLC experience a high symptom burden that worsens over time, especially in the last 4 months. Regular symptom monitoring may help identify where patients are in the disease trajectory, serve as a trigger for changes in anticancer and symptomatic treatment, and facilitate discussions about end-of-life care.

A Review of PROM Implementation in Surgical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the current state of PROM implementation and collection in routine surgical practice through a review of the literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant in the delivery of high quality, individualized patient care. For surgeons, PROMs can provide valuable insight into changes in patient quality of life before and after surgical interventions. Despite consensus within the surgical community regarding the promise of PROMs, little is known about their real-world implementation.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase for studies published after 2012. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize the current state of implementation of PROs across all sizes and types of surgical practices. Studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients ≥18 years 2) routine surgical practice, (3) use of a validated PRO instrument in the peri-operative period to report on general or disease-specific health-related quality of life, (4) primary or secondary outcome was implementation. Two independent reviewers screened 1524 titles and abstracts.

FINDINGS

16 studies were identified that reported on the implementation of PROMs for surgical patients. Sample size ranged from 41 patients in a single-center pilot study to 1324 patients in a study across 17 institutions. PROs were collected pre-operatively in 3 studies, post-operatively in 10, and at unspecified times in 4. The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (12) and feasibility (11). Less than half of studies analyzed nonrespondents. All studies concluded that collection of PROMs was successful based on outcomes measured.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified studies suggest that implementation metrics including minimum standards of collection pre- and postintervention, reporting for response rates in the context of patient eligibility and analysis of respondents and nonrespondents, in addition to transparency regarding the resources utilized and cost, can facilitate adoption of PROMs in clinical care and accountability for surgical outcomes.

Clinical Outcome Assessment in Cancer Rehabilitation and the Central Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes

The aim of cancer rehabilitation is to help patients regain functioning and social participation. In order to evaluate and optimize rehabilitation, it is important to measure its outcomes in a structured way. In this article, we review the different types of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), including Clinician-Reported Outcomes (ClinROs), Observer-Reported Outcomes (ObsROs), Performance Outcomes (PerfOs), and Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). A special focus is placed on PROs, which are commonly defined as any direct report from the patient about their health condition without any interpretation by a third party. We provide a narrative review of available PRO measures (PROMs) for relevant outcomes, discuss the current state of PRO implementation in cancer rehabilitation, and highlight trends that use PROs to benchmark value-based care. Furthermore, we provide examples of PRO usage, highlight the benefits of electronic PRO (ePRO) collection, and offer advice on how to select, implement, and integrate PROs into the cancer rehabilitation setting to maximize efficiency.

Association of Health-Related Quality of Life with Overall Survival in Older Americans with Kidney Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background: Our purpose was to evaluate associations between health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and overall survival (OS) in a population-based sample of kidney cancer (KC) patients in the US. Methods: We analyzed a longitudinal cohort (n = 188) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database linked with the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS; 1998–2014). We included KC patients aged ≥65 years, with a completed MHOS during baseline (pre-diagnosis) and another during follow-up (post-diagnosis). We reported HRQoL as physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores and OS as number of months from diagnosis to death/end-of-follow-up. Findings were reported as adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs (95% CI)) from Cox Proportional Hazard models. Results: The aHRs associated with a 3-point lower average (baseline and follow-up) or a 3-point within-patient decline (change) in HRQoL with OS were: (a) baseline: PCS (1.08 (1.01–1.16)) and MCS (1.09 (1.01–1.18)); (b) follow-up: PCS (1.21 (1.12–1.31)) and MCS (1.11 (1.04–1.19)); and (c) change: PCS (1.10 (1.02–1.18)) and MCS (1.02 (0.95–1.10)). Conclusions: Reduced HRQoL was associated with worse OS and this association was strongest for post-diagnosis PCS, followed by change in PCS and pre-diagnosis PCS. Findings highlight the prognostic value of HRQoL on OS, emphasize the importance of monitoring PCS in evaluating KC prognosis, and contribute additional evidence to support the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical settings.

Implementation of a cloud-based electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) platform in patients with advanced cancer

Background

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) have been associated with improved symptom management and quality of life in patients with cancer. However, the implementation of PROs in an academic clinical practice has not been thoroughly described. Here we report on the execution, feasibility and healthcare utilization outcomes of an electronic PRO (ePRO) application for cancer patients at an academic medical center.

Methods

We conducted a randomized trial comparing an experimental ePRO arm to standard of care in patients with advanced cancer in the thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary oncology groups at Stanford Cancer Center from March 2018 to November 2019. We describe the pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation phases of the ePRO arm, technological barriers, electronic health record (EHR) integration, clinician burden, and patient data privacy and security. Feasibility was pre-specified to be at least 70% completion of all questionnaires. Acceptability was based on patient and clinician feedback. Ambulatory healthcare utilization was assessed by reviewing numbers of phone messages, electronic portal messages, and referrals for supportive care.

Results

Of 617 ePRO questionnaires sent to 72 patients, 445 (72%) were completed. Most clinicians (87.5%) and patients (93%) felt neutral or positive about the ePRO tool’s ease of use. Exposure to ePRO did not cause a measurable change in ambulatory healthcare utilization, with a median of less than two phone messages and supportive care referrals, and 5–6 portal messages.

Conclusions

Web-based ePRO tools for patients with advanced cancer are feasible and acceptable without increasing clinical burden. Key lessons include the importance of pilot testing, engagement of stakeholders at all levels, and the need for customization by disease group. Future directions for this work include completion of EHR integration, expansion to other centers, and development of integrated workflows for routine clinical practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-021-00358-2.

Oncology team perspectives on distress screening: a multisite study of a well-established use of patient-reported outcomes for clinical assessment

PURPOSE

Cancer care team attitudes towards distress screening are key to its success and sustainability. Previous qualitative research has interviewed staff mostly around the startup phase. We evaluate oncology teams' perspectives on psychosocial distress screening, including perceived strengths and challenges, in settings where it has been operational for years.

METHODS

We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 71 cancer care team members (e.g., MDs, RNs, MSWs) at 18 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs including those serving underrepresented populations.

RESULTS

Strengths of distress screening identified by participants included identifying patient needs and testing provider assumptions. Staff indicated it improved patient-provider communication and other aspects of care. Challenges to distress screening included patient barriers (e.g., respondent burden) and lack of electronic system interoperability. Participants expressed the strengths of distress screening (n = 291) more than challenges (n = 86). Suggested improvements included use of technology to collect data, report results, and make referrals; complete screenings prior to appointments; longitudinal assessment; additional staff training; and improve resources to address patient needs.

CONCLUSION

Cancer care team members' perspectives on well-established distress screening programs largely replicate findings of previous studies focusing on the startup phase, but there are important differences: team members expressed more strengths than challenges, suggesting a positive attitude. While our sample described many challenges described previously, they did not indicate challenges with scoring and interpreting the distress screening questionnaire. The differences in attitudes expressed in response to mature versus startup implementations provide important insights to inform efforts to sustain and optimize distress screening.

Super and Nonresponders to Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Quality-of-Life Assessment Using Patient Reported Outcomes

[Figure: see text].

Adoption of patient-reported outcome measures with youth with intellectual/developmental disabilities: Contextual influences and practice patterns

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify potential barriers to patient reported outcome measure (PROM) adoption with youth and young adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD) and to understand current PROM adoption patterns of paediatric practitioners working with this population.

METHODS

We used a web-based survey to collect data from paediatric practitioners who work with youth with IDD about factors influencing the adoption of PROMs and the frequency of PROM use across age groups (elementary, middle school and high school/transition age) and practice settings (school and rehabilitation).

RESULTS

A total of 113 paediatric practitioners (occupational therapist = 48, physical therapist = 32, physician = 16, other = 17) responded to the survey with an average of 15 years of experience working with youth ages 8-21 with IDD. Accessibility and appropriateness, psychometric evidence, and time were most frequently ranked among the top three factors that influence practitioners' adoption of PROMs. Practitioners reported 'never or rarely' using PROMs 39%-65% of the time across age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that paediatric practitioners may be infrequently using PROMs with youth with IDD because of perceived inaccessibility and time requirements of PROMs and practice-environment barriers, including access to evidence and caseload demands. Because PROMs can facilitate client-centred care, addressing these potential barriers to adoption may improve paediatric rehabilitation.

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

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 .

Using Process Indicators to Monitor Documentation of Patient-Centred Variables in an Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care Pathway-Results from a Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite robust evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating clinical and patient-reported benefits of integrated oncology and palliative care, the tumour-centred focus is predominant. This single-centre process evaluation monitors documentation of required patient-centred variables during an RCT.

METHODS

Performance status, patient self-reported symptoms, weight and summaries to general practitioners were assessed from June 2017 to July 2020 in three consultation types: first oncological after study inclusion and palliative and oncological consultations during chemotherapy. Descriptive statistics were used to monitor if the pre-defined program fulfilment of ≥85% documentation was reached.

RESULTS

435 consultations were monitored in 76 patients; 60.5% males, 86.8% with GI cancers; 76 (17.5%) were from the first oncological consultations, 87 (20.0%) and 272 (62.5%) from palliative or subsequent oncological consultations. Program fulfilment differed across consultation types with 94.8% in the palliative consultations (83.3-100%), relative to 65.8% (62.5-75.0%) and 69.2% (57.0-84.3%) for first and subsequent oncological consultations over time, respectively. Use of self-reported symptoms was consistently lower in the oncological consultations.

CONCLUSIONS

The documentation level of required core variables was not satisfactory, notwithstanding their high clinical relevance and continuous reminders during study. Pre-trial optimization strategies are paramount to promote integration and reduce professional and personal barriers towards a more patient-centred focus.

Making the Case for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Big-Data Rehabilitation Research: Implications for Optimizing Patient-Centered Care

Advances in data science and timely access to health informatics provide a pathway to integrate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into clinical workflows and optimize rehabilitation service delivery. With the shift toward value-based care in the United States health care system, as highlighted by the recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services incentive and penalty programs, it is critical for rehabilitation providers to systematically collect and effectively use PROMs to facilitate evaluation of quality and outcomes within and across health systems. This editorial discusses the potential of PROMs to transform clinical practice, provides examples of health systems using PROMs to guide care, and identifies barriers to aggregating data from PROMs to conduct health services research. The article proposes 2 priority areas to help advance rehabilitation health services research: (1) standardization of collecting PROMs data in electronic health records to facilitate comparing health system performance and quality and (2) increased partnerships between rehabilitation providers, researchers, and payors to accelerate health system learning. As health care reform continues to emphasize value-based payment strategies, it is essential for the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation to be at the forefront of demonstrating its value in the care continuum.

Interpreting Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation Profile Scores for Use by Clinicians, Burn Survivors, and Researchers

The Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation (LIBRE) Profile is a patient-reported outcome measure developed to assess social participation in adult burn survivors. This study identified numeric score cut-points that define different levels of social participation ability and described each level. An expert panel identified numeric score cut-points that distinguish different levels of social participation for the six LIBRE Profile domains. Methods employed an iterative, modified-Delphi approach, and bookmarking to review calibrated item banks. Analyses (using calibration sample data and repeated in a validation sample) examined means, SDs, and sample distributions for each level. Analyses of variance examined score differences between levels. The panel developed descriptions for each established level. Initial cut-points resulted in four levels for five domains (Social Activities, Social Interactions, Romantic Relationships, Sexual Relationships, and Work & Employment) and five levels for the sixth domain (Relationships with Family & Friends). Comparisons demonstrated significant differences between level mean scores for all domains (P < .05) except Relationships with Family & Friends. Based on follow-up surveys, Relationships with Family & Friends score cut-points were adjusted to identify four levels with significant score differences between all levels. Panelists reached consensus for level descriptions. Score cut-points and descriptions identify different levels of social participation, providing a relevant context for interpreting LIBRE Profile numeric scores. LIBRE Profile Social Participation levels will help clinicians and persons with burn injury interpret LIBRE Profile numeric scores and promote use of this important new assessment.

An actionable needs assessment for adolescents and young adults with cancer: the AYA Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB)

PURPOSE

In the USA, many of the nearly 90,000 adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer each year do not receive services to address the full scope of needs they experience during and after cancer treatment. To facilitate a systematic and patient-centered approach to delivering services to address the unmet needs of AYAs with cancer, we developed the AYA Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB).

METHODS

To develop NA-SB, we leveraged user-centered design, an iterative process for intervention development based on prospective user (i.e., provider and AYA) engagement. Specifically, we conducted usability testing and concept mapping to refine an existing tool-the Cancer Needs Questionnaire-Young People-to promote its usability and usefulness in routine cancer practice.

RESULTS

Our user-centered design process yielded a need assessment which assesses AYAs' physical, psychosocial, and practical needs. Importantly, needs in the assessment are grouped by services expected to address them, creating an intuitive and actionable link between needs and services.

CONCLUSION

NA-SB has the potential to improve care coordination at the individual level by allowing cancer care programs to tailor service delivery and resource provision to the individual needs of AYAs they serve.