Perspectives of Patients on the Utility of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on Cancer Care

Seow, Hsien; King, Susan; Green, Esther; Pereira, José; Sawka, Carol

doi:10.1200/jco.2011.37.9750

Cited by 7 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As illustrated, 66% (25/38) of the occurrences of themes identified 10 positive indicators of practitioner performance [ 16 - 18 , 21 , 23 - 25 , 28 - 31 , 33 - 35 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 44 , 45 , 47 - 50 ]. Practitioner performance was reported as more accurate prescribing, improved screening of patients, improved overall performance, increased awareness of patient conditions, improved follow-up due to better communication with patients, improved accuracy of diagnosis, improved documentation, improved benchmarking, improved care plans, and improved buy-in of CDSSs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kruse¹,

Ehrbar²

2020

JMIR Med Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kruse¹,

Ehrbar²

2020

JMIR Med Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consistent with prior work, nearly half (44%) of our sample indicated that there would be significant benefit to reporting symptoms on a daily basis and almost all (90%) reported that there would be at least some benefit. 11 Perceived benefit of reporting oncology-related symptom changes daily via eDiary was high across diagnosis groups, with 87-97% of patients across breast, prostate, and, skin, cancers reporting that there was at least some benefit to doing so. Indeed, patients in the current sample overwhelmingly (96%) reported that it is important that trial doctors review the information that they provide electronically and 87% endorsed believing their doctors do.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When given the chance to provide symptom information regularly in the form of ePROs, 87% of patients felt that it was important to do so, with 79% indicating that they felt their responses were included in treatment decisions. 11 These data suggest that patients are not only willing, but eager to provide information via electronic device and that doing so may have measurable positive impact on treatment outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Oncology patient preferences in reporting on symptoms

Peechatka¹,

Ly²,

Dallabrida³

2020

Int J Clin Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Collecting patient reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials is becoming increasingly important. However, there is limited consensus on the most appropriate frequency of PRO administration in oncology trials. The aim of this preliminary study is to examine the perspective of participants with a cancer diagnosis on the importance of completing PROs and to identify at what frequency participants prefer to report on their cancer-related symptoms.Methods: 166 participants with a self-reported cancer diagnosis completed a multiple-choice online survey regarding perceptions of symptom importance and reporting preferences.Results: When asked about the benefit of reporting oncology-related symptoms daily, 44% of participants indicated there would be “very much” a benefit, 29% indicated there would be “quite a bit” of benefit, and 17% indicated there would be “somewhat” of a benefit. When asked about how frequently they would prefer to report symptoms, 41% of participants preferred “as they occur,” 36% preferred “once a day,” 18% preferred “once a week,” 4% preferred “twice a day,” and 1% preferred “every 4 hours”.Conclusions: PROs in oncology clinical research are most often collected at weekly, monthly, or longer intervals; however, meaningful fluctuations in cancer-related symptoms can occur more frequently. While concerns regarding patient burden are often raised to support infrequent reporting, these data suggest that participants would like to report symptoms with greater frequency, as episodic and daily reporting options were most popular. Based on these data, more frequent PRO data capture is not only feasible but perceived as important by individuals with cancer.

show abstract

“…In certain jurisdictions and countries, this practice has been largely driven by government mandates to monitor and improve care and to allow comparisons of outcomes between providers and between institutions (eg, in the United Kingdom, through the National Health Service) . In oncology, some cancer centers have also adopted the routine use of PROs to gather patient symptoms and function in an effort to enhance the quality of cancer care . Studies have demonstrated that this results in better detection and documentation of patient symptoms as well as improved patient‐physician communication .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hsu

Speers

Kennecke

et al. 2017

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Perspectives of Patients on the Utility of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on Cancer Care

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

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

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

Oncology patient preferences in reporting on symptoms

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About