Effects of a Self-Monitoring Quality of Life Intervention for Patients with Cancer Receiving Palliative Care in Japan: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assess a patient's subjective appraisal of health outcomes from their own perspective. Despite hypothesised benefits that feedback  on PROMs can support decision-making in clinical practice and improve outcomes, there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of PROMs feedback.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PROMs feedback to patients, or healthcare workers, or both on patient-reported health outcomes and processes of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, two other databases and two clinical trial registries on 5 October 2020. We searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We included randomised trials directly comparing the effects on outcomes and processes of care of PROMs feedback to healthcare professionals and patients, or both with the impact of not providing such information.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted meta-analyses of the results where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 116 randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of PROMs feedback in improving processes or outcomes of care, or both in a broad range of disciplines including psychiatry, primary care, and oncology. Studies were conducted across diverse ambulatory primary and secondary care settings in North America, Europe and Australasia. A total of 49,785 patients were included across all the studies. The certainty of the evidence varied between very low and moderate. Many of the studies included in the review were at risk of performance and detection bias. The evidence suggests moderate certainty that PROMs feedback probably improves quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.26; 11 studies; 2687 participants), and leads to an increase in patient-physician communication (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52; 5 studies; 658 participants), diagnosis and notation (risk ratio (RR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08; 21 studies; 7223 participants), and disease control (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 14 studies; 2806 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference for general health perceptions (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24; 2 studies, 552 participants; low-certainty evidence), social functioning (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 15 studies; 2632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.08; 9 studies; 2386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of PROMs feedback on physical functioning (14 studies; 2788 participants) and mental functioning (34 studies; 7782 participants), as well as fatigue (4 studies; 741 participants), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to PROM completion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PROM feedback probably produces moderate improvements in communication between healthcare professionals and patients as well as in diagnosis and notation, and disease control, and small improvements to quality of life. Our confidence in the effects is limited by the risk of bias, heterogeneity and small number of trials conducted to assess outcomes of interest. It is unclear whether   many of these improvements are clinically meaningful or sustainable in the long term. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, particularly studies which employ cluster designs and utilise techniques to maintain allocation concealment.

Experiences of a Web-Based Quality of Life Self-Monitoring Tool for Individuals With Bipolar Disorder: A Qualitative Exploration

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of symptoms is a cornerstone of psychological interventions in bipolar disorder (BD), but individuals with lived experience also value tracking holistic outcomes, such as quality of life (QoL). Importantly, self-monitoring is not always experienced positively by people with BD and may have lower than expected rates of engagement. Therefore, before progressing into QoL tracking tools, it is important to explore user perspectives to identify possible risks and benefits, optimal methods to support engagement, and possible avenues to integrate QoL self-monitoring practices into clinical work.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to conduct a qualitative exploration of how individuals with BD engaged with a Web-based version of a BD-specific QoL self-monitoring instrument, the QoL tool.

METHODS

A total of 43 individuals with BD engaged with a self-management intervention with an optional Web-based QoL self-assessment tool as part of an overarching mixed method study. Individuals were later interviewed about personal experiences of engagement with the intervention, including experiences of gauging their own QoL. A thematic analysis was used to identify salient aspects of the experience of QoL self-monitoring in BD.

RESULTS

In total, 4 categories describing people's experiences of QoL self-monitoring were identified: (1) breadth of QoL monitoring, (2) highlighting the positive, (3) connecting self-monitoring to action, and (4) self-directed patterns of use.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this research generate novel insights into ways in which individuals with BD experience the Web-based QoL self-assessment tool. The value of tracking the breadth of domains was an overarching aspect, facilitating the identification of both areas of strength and life domains in need of intervention. Importantly, monitoring QoL appeared to have an inherently therapeutic quality, through validating flourishing areas and reinforcing self-management efforts. This contrasts the evidence suggesting that symptom tracking may be distressing because of its focus on negative experiences and positions QoL as a valuable adjunctive target of observation in BD. Flexibility and personalization of use of the QoL tool were key to engagement, informing considerations for health care providers wishing to support self-monitoring and future research into Web- or mobile phone-based apps.

Effectiveness of a Self-Monitoring Quality of Life Intervention For Patients with Cancer Receiving Palliative Care: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Background: Use of patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice has important benefits for patients with cancer. To examine the effect of a self-monitoring quality of life (QOL) intervention on global QOL and physical and emotional function in patients with cancer receiving palliative care. Methods: Prospective randomized study had been undertaken at Toshima Hospital, Japan. This study compared an intervention group that completed the shortened Care Notebook booklet versus a control group that received usual care. The primary outcome was global QOL and secondary outcomes were physical and emotional function. Participants completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative at baseline, and at 1 and 3 weeks. The effects of the intervention were evaluated with a linear mixed-effects model. Results: Forty-three patients were randomized. One patient in each group could not receive the allocated intervention, leaving 41 patients for inclusion in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis for the primary outcome. Twenty-seven patients were analyzed for the secondary outcomes using per protocol set (PPS). The ITT analysis showed no significant overall effect on global QOL (P=0.285), but the PPS analysis showed a significant overall effect on global QOL (P=0.034) and physical function (P=0.047) for group difference over time in the linear mixed-effects model. Conclusions: Use of the Care Notebook might have beneficial effects. The results could be interpreted as the effectiveness of the intervention of the Care Notebook for with cancer receiving palliative care.