Perspectives of patients on the utility of electronic patient-reported outcomes on cancer care

Effects of Computerized Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review

Background

Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are software programs that support the decision making of practitioners and other staff. Other reviews have analyzed the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. These reviews reported positive practitioner performance in over half the articles analyzed, but very little information was found for patient outcomes.

Objective

The purpose of this review was to analyze the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient medical outcomes. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were queried.

Methods

Articles were chosen based on year published (last 10 years), high quality, peer-reviewed sources, and discussion of the relationship between the use of CDSS as an intervention and links to practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers used an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation) to collect information on the relationship between CDSSs and practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers also collected observations of participants, intervention, comparison with control group, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) along with those showing implicit bias. Articles were analyzed by multiple reviewers following the Kruse protocol for systematic reviews. Data were organized into multiple tables for analysis and reporting.

Results

Themes were identified for both practitioner performance (n=38) and medical outcomes (n=36). A total of 66% (25/38) of articles had occurrences of positive practitioner performance, 13% (5/38) found no difference in practitioner performance, and 21% (8/38) did not report or discuss practitioner performance. Zero articles reported negative practitioner performance. A total of 61% (22/36) of articles had occurrences of positive patient medical outcomes, 8% (3/36) found no statistically significant difference in medical outcomes between intervention and control groups, and 31% (11/36) did not report or discuss medical outcomes. Zero articles found negative patient medical outcomes attributed to using CDSSs.

Conclusions

Results of this review are commensurate with previous reviews with similar objectives, but unlike these reviews we found a high level of reporting of positive effects on patient medical outcomes.

[Evaluation Index of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Status and Progress of Patient Report Outcomes in Thoracic Surgery]

加速康复外科临床应用的良好效果体现在降低围手术期并发症的发生率并缩短住院时间，但对围术期的患者症状管理及术后患者生活质量的关注不够高。从患者报告的资料角度评估临床疗效越来越受到重视。结合目前国内外关于病人报告结局的研究成果，本文系统论述了病人报告结局的概念内涵、研究意义及在胸外科的临床应用现状，提出借鉴国外病人报告的临床结局研究模式，开展有中国特色的结合学科特点的相关研究，并对已有的文献报告进行总结及分析。

The utility of abbreviated patient-reported outcomes for predicting survival in early stage colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical settings. Prior research suggests that PROs collected at baseline may be associated with cancer survival, but most of those studies were conducted in patients with breast or lung cancer. The objective of this study was to determine the correlation between prospectively collected PROs and cancer-specific outcomes in patients with early stage colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who had newly diagnosed stage II or III colorectal cancer from 2009 to 2010 and had a consultation at the British Columbia Cancer Agency completed the brief Psychosocial Screen for Cancer (PSSCAN) questionnaire, which collects data on patients' perceived social supports, quality of life (QOL), anxiety and depression, and general health. PROs from the PSSCAN were linked with the Gastrointestinal Cancers Outcomes Database, which contains information on patient and tumor characteristics, treatment details, and cancer outcomes. Cox regression models were constructed for overall survival (OS), and Fine and Gray regression models were developed for disease-specific survival (DSS).

RESULTS

In total, 692 patients were included. The median patient age was 67 years (range, 26-95 years), and the majority had colon cancer (61%), were diagnosed with stage III disease (54%), and received chemotherapy (58%). In general, patients felt well supported and reported good overall health and QOL. On multivariate analysis, increased fatigue was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.99; P = .00007) and DSS (HR, 1.63; P = .03), as was lack of emotional support (OS: HR, 4.36; P = .0003; DSS: HR, 1.92; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Although most patients described good overall health and QOL and indicated that they were generally well supported, patients who experienced more pronounced fatigue or lacked emotional support had a higher likelihood of worse OS and DSS. These findings suggest that abbreviated PROs can inform and assist clinicians to identify patients who have a worse prognosis and may need more vigilant follow-up. Cancer 2017;123:1839-1847. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

PURPOSE

The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is a library of question items that enables patient reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials. This study contributes content validity evidence of the PRO-CTCAE by incorporating cancer patient input of the relevance and comprehensiveness of the item library.

METHODS

Cognitive interviews were conducted among patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at multiple sites to evaluate comprehension, memory retrieval, judgment, and response mapping related to AE terms (e.g., nausea), attribute terms (regarding frequency, severity, or interference), response options, and recall period. Three interview rounds were conducted with ≥20 patients completing each item per round. Items were modified and retested if ≥3 patients exhibited cognitive difficulties or if experienced by ≤25% patients.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-seven patients participated (35% ≤high school, 28% non-white, and 59% female). Most AE terms (63/80) generated no cognitive difficulties. The remaining 17 were modified without further difficulties by Round 3. Terms were comprehended regardless of education level. Attribute terms and response options required no modifications. Patient adherence to recall period (7 days) was improved when the reference period was incorporated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence confirming comprehension of the US English language versions of items in the PRO-CTCAE library for measuring symptomatic AEs from the patient perspective within the context of cancer treatment. Several minor changes were made to the items to improve item clarity, comprehension, and ease of response judgment. This study helps to establish the content validity of PRO-CTCAE items for patient reporting of AEs during cancer treatment.