Qualitative analysis of practicing oncologists’ attitudes and experiences regarding HIT-facilitated collection of patient-reported outcomes.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56-56
Author(s):  
Reshma Jagsi ◽  
Anne C. Chiang ◽  
Bruno C. Medeiros ◽  
Blase N. Polite ◽  
Kristen McNiff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Quality Measurement ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Learning System ◽  
Medical Liability ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Rapid Learning ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

56 Background: Growing interest in incorporating widespread and routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into a rapid-learning system for cancer care motivates consideration of stakeholder attitudes and experiences with PRO collection. Practicing oncologists are stakeholders whose views are not well characterized to date. Methods: We developed an interview guide after literature review and 6 in-depth interviews with leaders in the field. With IRB approval, we conducted 45-minute semi-structured interviews with medical oncologists identified through affiliation with QOPI or a minority-based CCOP. Purposive sampling ensured a diverse range of viewpoints. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation. Multiple analysts independently reviewed and thematically coded verbatim transcripts. Results: 17 interviews were conducted with oncologists from diverse practice settings and types. Emergent themes included variability in understanding and experience with PRO collection; general enthusiasm for the potential value of PROs (with subthemes focused on impact on thoroughness and efficiency, and potential for coordination with quality measurement processes); and fundamental concerns (including information overload, the possibility of identifying problems for which no good interventions exist, depersonalization of the physician-patient encounter, cost, and inefficiency). Several potential barriers to the widespread implementation of PROs were identified, including need for buy-in from other stakeholders in the practice, lack of appropriate referral resources, staffing needs, and technology concerns. Respondents generally favored simple tools, format allowing for time-trending and visualization of the impact of interventions, and tailoring to the individual patient’s disease site, stage, and point in treatment trajectory. Very few identified patient compliance, data sharing/privacy, or medical liability as major barriers to implementation. Conclusions: Widespread inclusion of PROs in a rapid-learning system of oncology care will require careful consideration of the insights provided by practicing oncologists.

Individualized cancer follow-up supported by electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes: Development and evaluation (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sissel Ravn ◽  
Henriette Vind Thaysen ◽  
Lene Seibaek ◽  
Victor Jilbert Verwaal ◽  
Lene Hjerrild Iversen
Keyword(s):  
Ct Scan ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
European Organization ◽  
Individualized Care ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND Cancer survivors experience unmet needs during follow-up. Besides recurrence, a follow-up includes detection of late side effects, rehabilitation, palliation and individualized care. OBJECTIVE We aimed to describe the development and evaluate the feasibility of an intervention providing individualized cancer follow-up supported by electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PRO). METHODS The study was carried out as an interventional study at a Surgical and a Gynecological Department offering complex cancer surgery and follow-up for advanced cancer. The e-PRO screened for a priori defined clinical important symptoms and needs providing individualized follow-up. We included following questionnaires in the e-PRO; the general European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and the EORTC validated for colorectal and ovarian cancer patients. To support individualization, we included three prioritized issues of the patient’s preference in each e-PRO. The response-algorithm was aggregated based on the severity of the patient’s response. To ensure the sensitivity of the e-PRO, we performed semi-structured interviews with five patients. All clinicians (surgeons and gynecologists) performing the consultations reviewed the e-PRO. The evaluation was divided in two, 1)The feasibility was assessed by a)Patients’ response rate of the e-PRO, b)Number of follow-up visits documenting the use of e-PRO and c)Patients’ prioritized issues prior to the consultation(‘yes’ / ‘no’), and after the follow-up 2)Patients assessment of a)The need and purpose of the follow-up visit and b)the support provided during the follow-up visit. RESULTS In total, 187 patients were included in the study, of which 73%(n=136/187) patients responded to the e-PRO and were subjected to an individualized follow-up. The e-PRO was documented as applied in 79% of the follow-up visits. In total, 23% of the prioritized issues did not include a response. Stratified by time since surgery, significantly more patients did not fill out a prioritized issue had a follow-up >6 months since surgery. In total, 72 % follow-up visits were evaluated to be necessary in order to discuss the outcome of the CT scan, symptoms, and/or prioritized issues. Contrary, 19% of the follow-up visits were evaluated to be necessary only to discuss the result of the CT scan. A range from 19.3–56.3% of patients assessed the follow-up visit to provide support with respect to physical (42% of patients), mental (56%), sexual (19%) or dietary (27%) issues. Further, a range from 34–60% of the patients reported that they did not need support regarding physical (43% of patients), mental (34%), sexual (63%) or dietary (57%) issues. CONCLUSIONS An individualized follow-up based on e-PRO is feasible, and support most patients surgically treated for advanced cancer. However, results indicate that follow-up based on e-PRO may not be beneficial for all patients and circumstances. A thorough cost-benefit analysis may be warranted before implementation in routine clinic.

Optimizing electronic capture of patient-reported outcome measures in oncology clinical trials: lessons learned from a qualitative study

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (17) ◽  
pp. 1195-1204
Author(s):  
Florence D Mowlem ◽  
Brad Sanderson ◽  
Jill V Platko ◽  
Bill Byrom
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Anticancer Treatment ◽  
Fit For Purpose ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Electronic Implementation

Aim: To understand the impact of anticancer treatment on oncology patients’ ability to use electronic solutions for completing patient-reported outcomes (ePRO). Materials & methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven individuals who had experienced a cancer diagnosis and treatment. Results: Participants reported that the following would impact the ability to interact with an ePRO solution: peripheral neuropathy of the hands (4/7), fatigue and/or concentration and memory issues (6/7), where they are in a treatment cycle (5/7). Approaches to improve usability included: larger, well-spaced buttons to deal with finger numbness, the ability to pause a survey and complete at a later point and presenting the recall period with every question to reduce reliance on memory. Conclusion: Symptoms associated with cancers and anticancer treatments can impact the use of technologies. The recommendations for optimizing the electronic implementation of patient-reported outcome instruments in this population provides the potential to improve data quality in oncology trials and places patient needs at the forefront to ensure ‘fit-for-purpose’ solutions.

Overview of the Patient Perspective at OMERACT 10 — Conceptualizing Methods for Developing Patient-Reported Outcomes

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 1699-1701 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN R. KIRWAN ◽  
PETER S. TUGWELL
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Experimental Work ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Perspective ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Instrument Selection ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Choice Of Instruments ◽  
The Way

This overview draws out the main conclusions from the 4 workshops focused on incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment at the 10th Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT 10) conference. They raised methodological issues about the choice of outcome domains to include in clinical trials, the development or choice of instruments to measure these domains, and the way these instruments might capture the impact of a disease and its treatment. The need to develop a more rigorous conceptual model of quantifying the way conditions affect health, and the need to ensure patients are directly involved in the decisions about domains and instruments, emerged clearly. The OMERACT participants voted to develop guidelines for domain and instrument selection, and conceptual and experimental work will be brought forward to revise and upgrade the OMERACT Filter.

The impact of a recent relapse on patient-reported outcomes in subjects with multiple sclerosis

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 1677-1684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian C. Healy ◽  
Irene R. Degano ◽  
Ana Schreck ◽  
David Rintell ◽  
Howard Weiner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Efficacy of a password-protected pill-dispensing device to enhance disposal of unused opioids after cancer surgery.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 264-264
Author(s):  
Jacob Cogan ◽  
Melissa Kate Accordino ◽  
Melissa Parsons Beauchemin ◽  
Sophie Ulene ◽  
Elena B. Elkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Control ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Smartphone App ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
After Cancer ◽  
The Impact

264 Background: Opioid misuse is a public health crisis. Initial opioid exposures often occur post-operatively, and 10% of opioid-naïve patients who undergo cancer surgery subsequently become long-term opioid users. It has been shown that 70% of opioids prescribed post-operatively go unused, but only 9% of unused pills are disposed appropriately, which increases the risk of unintended use. We evaluated the impact of an inexpensive, password-protected dispensing device with mail return capacity on retrieval of unused pills after cancer surgery. Methods: Adult patients scheduled for major cancer-related surgery were eligible. Enrolled patients received opioid prescriptions in a password-protected, pill-dispensing device (Addinex) from a specialty pharmacy. The mechanical device links to a smartphone app, which provides passwords on a prescriber-defined schedule. Patients request a password when they are in pain, enter the password into the device and receive a pill if the prescribed time has elapsed. The smartphone app provides clinical guidance based on patient-reported pain levels, and suggests tapering strategies. Patients are instructed to return the device in a DEA-approved mailer when opioid use is no longer required for pain control. Unused pills are destroyed upon receipt. The primary objective was to determine the feasibility of device return, defined as > 50% of patients with device return. We also explored patterns of device use, patient reported outcomes, and device satisfaction via surveys and semi-structured interviews. Results: Between October, 2020 and April, 2021, 13 patients completed the study; 4 patients are currently enrolled. Among the initial 13 patients, 7 underwent abdominal hysterectomy, 4 underwent mastectomy and 2 underwent cutaneous tumor resections. The majority of these patients (n = 10, 77%) returned the device, and more than half (n = 7, 54%) returned the device within 6 weeks of surgery. Only a minority of patients (n = 5, 38%) used the device to obtain opioids; most (n = 8, 62%) used no opioids at home, and all of these patients returned the device and the unused pills. Of 11 patients who participated in semi-structured interviews, most (n = 7, 64%) said they felt safer having opioids in the device instead of a regular pill bottle. Among device users, the majority (n = 4, 80%) reported an overall positive experience. All non-users reported having no opioid requirement for pain control. Conclusions: Our early findings suggest that use of an inexpensive, password-protected, pill-dispensing device to assist with opioid dispensing and return is feasible, with a high rate of device and unused opioid return to the pharmacy. This strategy may be effective for reducing opioid diversion. Analyses and recruitment are ongoing to evaluate the benefits of reducing post-operative opioid consumption.

Patient reported outcomes in patients with desmoid type fibromatosis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11574-11574
Author(s):  
VIKAS GARG ◽  
Sameer Rastogi ◽  
Adarsh Barwad ◽  
Rambha Panday ◽  
Sandeep Kumar Bhoriwal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Benign Neoplasm ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Appendicular Skeleton ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Symptom Scale ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

11574 Background: Desmoid type fibromatosis (DTF) is a rare benign neoplasm with infiltrative growth and high local recurrences. Due to long disease course, unpredictable growth pattern, and low mortality, using only survival outcomes may be inappropriate. In this study we assessed the impact of DTF on health related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods: This was a cross-sectional study done in patients with DTF. The study participants were asked to fill the EORTC QLQ-C30, GAD-7 and PHQ- 9 q uestionnaires to assess HRQoL, anxiety and depression . Outcomes were also compared with healthy controls. Results: 204 subjects (102 DTF patients and 102 healthy controls) were recruited. Study parameters have been summarized in Table. Appendicular skeleton (limbs + girdle) was most commonly involved in 59 % patients and abdominal wall or mesentery was involved in 22.5 %. Patients have received median of 2 lines of therapy. 54 % patients were currently on sorafenib and 41 % were under active surveillance. Mean global health status in DTF patient 65.58 ± 22.64, was significantly lower than healthy controls. Similarly, DTF patients scored low on all functional scales except cognitive functioning. Symptom scale showed significantly higher symptom burden of fatigue, pain, insomnia and financial difficulties. Anxiety & depression was observed in 39.22 % and 50 % of DTF patients respectively. DTF patients had higher rates of mild, moderate and severe anxiety and depression compared to healthy controls. No difference was observed based on site of disease. Conclusions: DTF patients have significant symptom burden, poor functioning, and heightened anxiety and depression. Patient reported outcomes should be routinely used to assess treatment efficacy in DTF patients.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals PD54-02 THE IMPACT OF URETERAL STENT OMISSION AND AN OPIATE-FREE PROTOCOL ON PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING URETEROSCOPY

2021 ◽  
Vol 206 (Supplement 3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Spencer C. Hiller ◽  
Stephani Daignault-Newton ◽  
Bronson Conrado ◽  
John M. Hollingsworth ◽  
William W. Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Ureteral Stent ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Analysis of Radiation Dose to the Shoulder by Treatment Technique and Correlation With Patient Reported Outcomes in Patients Receiving Regional Nodal Irradiation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose G. Bazan ◽  
Dominic DiCostanzo ◽  
Karen Hock ◽  
Sachin Jhawar ◽  
Karla Kuhn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Late Complication ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
Regional Nodal Irradiation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Dash Questionnaire

Background/PurposeShoulder/arm morbidity is a late complication of breast cancer treatment with surgery and regional nodal irradiation (RNI). We set to analyze the impact of radiation technique [intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT)] on radiation dose to the shoulder with a hypothesis that IMRT use results in smaller volume of shoulder receiving radiation. We explored the relationship of treatment technique on long-term patient-reported outcomes using the quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (q-DASH) questionnaire.Materials/MethodsWe identified patients treated with adjuvant RNI (50 Gy/25 fractions) from 2013 to 2018. We retrospectively contoured the shoulder organ-at-risk (OAR) from 2 cm above the ipsilateral supraclavicular (SCL) planning target volume (PTV) to the inferior SCL PTV slice and calculated the absolute volume of shoulder OAR receiving 5–50 Gy (V5–V50). We identified patients that completed a q-DASH questionnaire ≥6 months from the end of RNI.ResultsWe included 410 RNI patients: 54% stage III, 72% mastectomy, 35% treated with IMRT. IMRT resulted in significant reductions in the shoulder OAR volume receiving 20–50 Gy vs. 3DCRT. In total, 82 patients completed the q-DASH. The mean (SD) q-DASH=25.4 (19.1) and tended to be lower with IMRT vs. 3DCRT: 19.6 (16.4) vs. 27.8 (19.8), p=0.078.ConclusionWe found that IMRT reduces radiation dose to the shoulder and is associated with a trend toward reduced q-DASH scores ≥6 months post-RNI in a subset of our cohort. These results support prospective evaluation of IMRT as a technique to reduce shoulder morbidity in breast cancer patients receiving RNI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document