A pilot study of population-based, patient-reported outcome collection in cancer survivors

Agarwal, Veenoo; Corsini, Nadia; Eckert, Marion; Sharplin, Greg; Ramsey, Imogen; Gunn, Kate; Fitzgerald, Michael K.; Koczwara, Bogda

doi:10.1007/s00520-020-05910-2

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, patients who feel unwell, those with multiple chronic conditions or other complex needs, i.e., for whom ePRO collection could be particularly useful, may find it more cumbersome to provide data. However, it is precisely their voice that must be heard to provide the insights to what the unmet needs are [ 79 ]. In contrast, if self-management approaches provide support to patients who have moderate problems, then this can free limited health care resources to treat those most in need.…”

Section: Epros Ethical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) applications promise great added value for improving symptom management and health-related quality of life. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the collection and use of ePROs for cancer survivorship care, with an emphasis on ePRO-symptom monitoring. It offers many different perspectives from research settings, while current implementation in routine care is ongoing. ePRO collection optimizes survivorship care by providing insight into the patients’ well-being and prioritizing their unmet needs during the whole trajectory from diagnosis to end-of-life. ePRO-symptom monitoring can contribute to timely health risk detection and subsequently allow earlier intervention. Detection is optimized by automatically generated alerts that vary from simple to complex and multilayered. Using ePRO-symptoms during in-hospital consultation enhances the patients’ conversation with the health care provider before making informed decisions about treatments, other interventions, or self-management. ePRO(-symptoms) entail specific implementation issues and complementary ethics considerations. The latter is due to privacy concerns, digital divide, and scarcity of adequately representative data for particular groups of patients.

show abstract

Section: Epros Ethical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future research needs to focus on how to make self-directed screening acceptable and feasible, especially for those patients with limited health and digital literacy and those with a higher symptom burden for whom completing screening may be more difficult. Other studies using PROs have shown lower use among patients who are more unwell/have higher symptom burden who may benefit from screening more [ 19 , 20 ], further underscoring the importance of the health care provider support.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing a web-based system of screening for symptoms and needs using patient-reported outcomes in people with cancer

Koczwara

Knowles

Beatty

et al. 2022

Support Care Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the implementation of a web-based system of screening for symptoms and needs in people with diverse cancers in a general hospital in Australia. Methods This was a prospective, single-arm, pragmatic intervention study. After local adaptation of an online portal and training, cancer nurses were asked to register patients to screen via the portal in clinic or at home. Symptoms were scored according to severity, and scores above cut-off were reported to nurses for assessment and management, according to best practice. Results Fifteen nurses working across diverse tumour types agreed to approach patients for screening. Of these, 7 nurses approached 68 patients, with 5 approaching more than 1 during the 7-month study period. Forty-seven (69%) patients completed screening, and 22 rescreened at least once. At first screening, 33 (70%) patients reported at least one symptom, most commonly tiredness ( n = 27; 57%), reduced wellbeing ( n = 24; 51%) and drowsiness ( n = 17; 36%). Of the total 75 screens undertaken during the study, 56 (75%) identified at least one symptom, and 22 (29%) identified at least one severe symptom. All patients with a positive first screen were followed up by a nurse assessment and intervention—mostly reassurance ( n = 19, 59%) or referral to another health professional ( n = 11, 34%). Conclusion Screening for symptoms and needs using a web-based portal identified many unmet needs, but the uptake of this intervention by nurses and patients was lower than expected.

show abstract

“…25,27,29,[33][34][35]37,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Twenty-four studies were conducted in cancer survivors only (N=24), [19][20][21][22][23][24][27][28][29][31][32][33][35][36][37][38][39][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] while the remaining (N=5) were conducted in a mixed sample of cancer survivors, patients on active treatment, and/or parents of childhood survivors. 25,26,30,34,40 The most common malignancies were breast (N=13) 21,22,24,25,27,31,32,…”

Section: Study Selection and Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…26 Multiple PROM delivery methods were reported in the studies: 15 administered PROMs electronically, 20,21,37,[42][43][44]46,[23][24][25][26][27]30,31,34 7 administered PROMs via telephone and/or in-person, 19,28,29,35,36,40,41 6 did not report method of PROM delivery, 22,32,33,38,39,47 and 2 utilized a remote paper PROM delivery via mail. 45,46 Table 1 provides an overview of how PROM findings were communicated to the patient and/or HCP. Fourteen studies did not describe how PROM data were communicated to patients; 19,24,42,[45][46][47]28,[30][31][32][33]36,38,41 11 studies provided patients with a summary report of PRO data, 20,21,…”

Section: Study Selection and Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…45,46 Table 1 provides an overview of how PROM findings were communicated to the patient and/or HCP. Fourteen studies did not describe how PROM data were communicated to patients; 19,24,42,[45][46][47]28,[30][31][32][33]36,38,41 11 studies provided patients with a summary report of PRO data, 20,21,44,22,23,25,27,35,37,39,43 and 4 relied on HCP to share the data. 26,29,34,40 In addition, 7 studies included information and resources for self-management that was customized for the patient based on PRO data.…”

Section: Study Selection and Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient-reported outcome measurement implementation in cancer survivors: a systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are increasingly used for cancer patients receiving active treatment, but little is known about the implementation and usefulness of PROMs in cancer survivorship care. This systematic review evaluates how cancer survivors and healthcare providers (HCPs) perceive PROM implementation in survivorship care, and how PROM implementation impacts cancer survivors' health outcomes. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to February 2022 to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies of PROM implementation in cancer survivors.Results: Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 29 studies that reported on 26 unique PROMs. The studies were heterogeneous in study design, PROM instrument, patient demographics, and outcomes. Several studies found that cancer survivors and HCPs had favorable impressions of the utility of PROMs, and a few studies demonstrated that PROM implementation led to improvements in patient quality of life (QoL), with small to moderate effect sizes. Conclusions:We found implementation of PROMs in cancer survivorship care improved health outcomes for select patient populations. Future research is needed to assess the real-world utility of PROM integration into clinical workflows and the impact of PROMs on measurable health outcomes.

show abstract

A pilot study of population-based, patient-reported outcome collection in cancer survivors

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring

A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring

Implementing a web-based system of screening for symptoms and needs using patient-reported outcomes in people with cancer

Patient-reported outcome measurement implementation in cancer survivors: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About