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

FASTOCH: Feasibility of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Older Patients With Cancer-A Multicenter Prospective Study

PURPOSE

Multiple studies have demonstrated that electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) improve overall survival and quality of life in cancer care. However, there are no specific prospective data on remote ePRO monitoring in the older population, although they represent a significant proportion of patients with cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From February 2021 to April 2022, patients age 75 years and older under active anticancer treatment were consecutively recruited in six institutions. Remote ePRO feasibility was determined in intention-to-test (ITT) on the basis of the number of active users in the overall population. Primary failure applied to patients who had no Internet access or declined to test ePROs, while the other patients were assigned to the ITT population. Feasibility was also determined per-protocol on the basis of the number of active patients in the ITT population.

RESULTS

Of the 473 patients included, primary failure applied to 288 patients (233 of whom had no Internet access). Among the 185 patients in ITT, 122 used ePROs, leading to a 26% feasibility in ITT and a 66% feasibility per protocol. In a multivariate analysis, the intent to test population was from a higher socioprofessional category (P = .009) and felt in better general condition in the Geriatric 8-score evaluation (P = .002). Active patients significantly differed from the inactive on their self-assessment of a better general condition (P < .001) only.

CONCLUSION

Our multicenter study showed a limited feasibility rate (26%) of remote ePROs monitoring for older patients with cancer, mainly because of technology barriers. Yet, among the patients who did have Internet access, most of them indeed used ePROs (66%). Given the expected benefit of ePROs, the technology barriers therefore need to be lifted to improve cancer care in older patients.

Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

Patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) have gained widespread support as a mechanism to improve healthcare quality. We aimed to map out key enablers and barriers influencing PROMs implementation strategies in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

An umbrella review was conducted to identify reviews exploring enablers and barriers related to the integration of PROMs in routine clinical practice from January 2000 to June 2023. Information on key enablers and barriers was extracted and summarised thematically according to the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

34 reviews met our criteria for inclusion. Identified reviews highlighted barriers such as limited PROMs awareness among clinicians and patients, perceived low value by clinicians and patients, PROMs that were too complex or difficult for patients to complete, poor usability of PROMs systems, delayed feedback of PROMs data, clinician concerns related to use of PROMs as a performance management tool, patient concerns regarding privacy and security, and resource constraints. Enablers encompassed phased implementation, professional training, stakeholder engagement prior to implementation, clear strategies and goals, 'change champions' to support PROMs implementation, systems to respond to issues raised by PROMs, and integration into patient pathways. No consensus favoured paper or electronic PROMs, yet offering both options to mitigate digital literacy bias and integrating PROMs into electronic health records emerged as important facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

The sustainable implementation of PROMs is a complex process that requires multicomponent organisational strategies covering training and guidance, necessary time and resources, roles and responsibilities, and consultation with patients and clinicians.

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.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome System at Cancer Hospitals in Japan

Background and objective Implementing electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in oncology practice has shown substantial clinical benefits. However, it can be challenging in routine practice, warranting strategies to adapt to different clinical contexts. In light of this, this study aimed to describe the implementation process of the ePRO system and elucidate the provider-level implementation barriers and facilitators to a novel ePRO system at cancer hospitals in Japan. Methods We implemented an ePRO system linked to electronic medical records at three cancer hospitals. Fifteen patients with solid cancers at the outpatient oncology unit were asked to regularly complete the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™) questionnaire and European Organization for Research and Treatment Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) by using the smartphone app between October 2021 and June 2022. Thirteen healthcare professionals were interviewed to identify implementation barriers and facilitators to the ePRO system by using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework. Results The healthcare professionals identified a lack of clinical resources and a culture and system that emphasizes treatment over care as the main barriers; however, the accumulation of successful cases, the leadership of managers, and the growing needs of patients can serve as facilitators to the implementation. Conclusions Our experience implementing an ePRO system in a few Japanese oncology practices revealed comprehensive barriers and facilitators. Further efforts are warranted to develop more successful implementation strategies.

The advantages, disadvantages, threats, and opportunities of electronic patient-reported outcome systems in cancer: A systematic review

Objective

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems hold promise for revolutionizing communication between cancer patients and healthcare providers across various care settings. This systematic review explores the multifaceted landscape of ePROs in cancer care, encompassing their advantages, disadvantages, potential risks, and opportunities for improvement.

Methods

In our systematic review, we conducted a rigorous search in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, employing comprehensive medical subject heading terms for ePRO and cancer, with no date limitations up to 2024. Studies were critically appraised and thematically analyzed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, including considerations of advantages, disadvantages, opportunities, and threats.

Findings

Analyzing 85 articles revealed 69 themes categorized into four key areas. Advantages (n = 14) were dominated by themes like "improved quality of life and care." Disadvantages (n = 26) included "limited access and technical issues." Security concerns and lack of technical skills were prominent threats (n = 10). Opportunities (n = 19) highlighted advancements in symptom management and potential solutions for technical challenges.

Conclusion

This review emphasizes the crucial role of continuous exploration, integration, and innovation in ePRO systems for optimizing patient outcomes in cancer care. Beyond traditional clinical settings, ePROs hold promise for applications in survivorship, palliative care, and remote monitoring. By addressing existing limitations and capitalizing on opportunities, ePROs can empower patients, enhance communication, and ultimately improve care delivery across the entire cancer care spectrum.

Involving Patients and Clinicians in the Design of Wireframes for Cancer Medicines Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Care: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment is a key component of health care systems, and the increasing number of cancer medicines is expanding the treatment landscape. However, evidence of the impact on patients has been focused more on chemotherapy toxicity and symptom control and less on the effect of cancer medicines more broadly on patients' lives. Evolving electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) presents the opportunity to secure early engagement of patients and clinicians in shaping the collection of quality-of-life metrics and presenting these data to better support the patient-clinician decision-making process.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to obtain initial feedback from patients and clinicians on the wireframes of a digital solution (patient app and clinician dashboard) for the collection and use of cancer medicines ePROMs.

METHODS

We adopted a 2-stage, mixed methods approach. Stage 1 (March to June 2019) consisted of interviews and focus groups with cancer clinicians and patients with cancer to explore the face validity of the wireframes, informed by the technology acceptance model constructs (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intention to use). In stage 2 (October 2019 to February 2020), the revised wireframes were assessed through web-based, adapted technology acceptance model questionnaires. Qualitative data (stage 1) underwent a framework analysis, and descriptive statistics were performed on quantitative data (stage 2). Clinicians and patients with cancer were recruited from NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, the largest health board in Scotland.

RESULTS

A total of 14 clinicians and 19 patients participated in a combination of stage 1 interviews and focus groups. Clinicians and patients indicated that the wireframes of a patient app and clinician dashboard for the collection of cancer medicines ePROMs would be easy to use and could focus discussions, and they would be receptive to using such tools in the future. In stage 1, clinicians raised the potential impact on workload, and both groups identified the need for adequate IT skills to use each technology. Changes to the wireframes were made, and in stage 2, clinicians (n=8) and patients (n=16) indicated it was "quite likely" that the technologies would be easy to use and they would be "quite likely" to use them in the future. Notably, clinicians indicated that they would use the dashboard to enable treatment decisions "with around half" of their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the importance of consulting both patients and clinicians in the design of digital solutions. The wireframes were perceived positively by patients and clinicians who were willing to use such technologies if available in the future as part of routine care. However, challenges were raised, and some differences were identified between participant groups, which warrant further research.