The Role of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Assessing Smoking Status and Cessation for Patients with Lung Cancer

Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures

Background

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) have emerged as valuable tools in cancer care, facilitating the comprehensive assessment of patients' physical, psychological, and social well-being. This study synthesizes literature on the utilization of ePROMs in oncology, highlighting the diverse array of measurement instruments and questionnaires employed in cancer patient assessments. By comprehensively analyzing existing research, this study provides insights into the landscape of ePROMs, informs future research directions, and aims to optimize patient-centred oncology care through the strategic integration of ePROMs into clinical practice.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted by searching peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals without time limitations up to 2024. The search was performed across multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, using predefined search terms related to cancer, measurement instruments, and patient assessment. The selected articles underwent a rigorous quality assessment using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

Results

The review of 85 studies revealed a diverse range of measurement instruments and questionnaires utilized in cancer patient assessments. Prominent instruments such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Patient Reported Outcome-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were frequently referenced across multiple studies. Additionally, other instruments identified included generic health-related quality of life measures and disease-specific assessments tailored to particular cancer types. The findings indicated the importance of utilizing a variety of measurement tools to comprehensively assess the multifaceted needs and experiences of cancer patients.

Conclusion

Our systematic review provides a comprehensive examination of the varied tools and ePROMs employed in cancer care, accentuating the perpetual requirement for development and validation. Prominent instruments like the EORTC QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE are underscored, emphasizing the necessity for a thorough assessment to meet the multifaceted needs of patients. Looking ahead, scholarly endeavours should prioritize the enhancement of existing tools and the creation of novel measures to adeptly address the evolving demands of cancer patients across heterogeneous settings and populations.

A Visual Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Lung Cancer From 2013 to 2023

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world and has become one of the malignancies with the highest incidence and mortality; more than half of patients die within one year of being diagnosed with lung cancer. In recent years, the concept of "patient-centered" service has gained popularity, and patients' subjective feelings have gradually been used in clinical decision-making. Therefore, this study determined the application of visual patient report outcomes in the field of lung cancer, in order to provide reference for specific clinical practice.

METHODS

Using the Web of Science core collection as the main analysis content, Citespace and VOSviewer were used to conduct this scientometric study.

RESULTS

A total of 499 literatures that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved. The most prolific institution was The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and the United States dominates this field.

CONCLUSION

The measurement of patient-reported outcomes is considered the gold standard for effectively evaluating patients' perceptions of clinical interventions or diseases. It is recommended that patient-reported outcomes be integrated into routine care for cancer patients in order to enhance communication between patients and healthcare providers.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Not applicable. All data in this paper are obtained from the web of science database.

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.

Improving the Understanding and Managing of the Quality of Life of Patients With Lung Cancer With Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are essential to clinical practice and research. The growth of eHealth technologies has provided unprecedented opportunities to collect information systematically through ePROMs. Although they are widely used in scientific research, more evidence is needed to determine their use and implementation in daily clinical practice. For example, when diagnosed, patients with lung cancer are at an advanced stage of the disease. This entails tremendous burden because of high mortality and losses in the different dimensions of the human being. In this case, monitoring symptoms and other outcomes help improve the patient's quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

ePROMs offered unprecedented opportunities to collect information systematically. Our goal was to demonstrate that ePROMs are more useful in controlling patient symptoms, lung cancer, and overall survival than their alternatives, such as nonelectronic PROMs.

METHODS

This exploratory review considered articles published between 2017 and 2022 identified through searches of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We found 5097 articles; after removing the duplicates, we reduced them to 3315. After reading the summary, we were left with 56. Finally, after applying the exclusion criteria, we reviewed 12. The 5-step framework by Arksey and O'Malley was used to refine the initial search results with the following research questions: Do ePROMs help physician-patient communication? To what extent do they improve decision-making? Are institutions and their digitization policies barriers to or facilitators of this process? and What else is needed for routine implementation?

RESULTS

This review included 12 articles. We found that ePROMs are an integrative and facilitative communication tool, highlighting their importance in the relationship between palliative care and medical oncology. ePROMs help assess patient symptoms and functionality more accurately and facilitate clinical decision-making. In addition, it allows for more precise predictions of overall patient survival and the adverse effects of their treatments. The main institutional obstacles are the initial investment, which can be costly, and the data protection policy. However, enablers included better funding through the development of telemedicine, support from institutional leaders to overcome resistance to change, and transparent policies to ensure the safe and secure use of ePROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine collection of remote ePROMs is an effective and valuable strategy for providing real-time clinical feedback. In addition, it provides satisfaction to patients and professionals. Optimizing ePROMs in patients with lung cancer leads to a more accurate view of health outcomes and ensures quality patient follow-up. It also allows us to stratify patients based on their morbidity, creating specific follow-ups for their needs. However, data privacy and security are concerns when using ePROMs to ensure compliance with local entities. At least four barriers were identified: cost, complex programming within health systems, safety, and social and health literacy.