Upper Digestive Disease App for Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study

Feasibility of app-based home monitoring after abdominal surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Abdominal surgery presents great challenges postoperatively. Considering financial healthcare constraints, the use of mobile applications has received increased interest. This systematic review was conducted to assess and report the feasibility of app-based home monitoring after abdominal surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched on the October 17, 2023. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-six articles were included, 17 of these originating from USA or Canada. The response rate varied between 11.9 ​% and 100 ​%. Bariatric, upper gastrointestinal, and colorectal surgery reported the highest response rates. All included studies had a degree of bias.

CONCLUSION

This study found varying response rates. The data indicated that the response rates were high within bariatric surgery, with additional factors potentially affecting this. The degree of bias was generally high, and the quality of the included studies limits the conclusions.

PRO-Angoff method for remote standard setting: establishing clinical thresholds for the upper digestive disease tool

BACKGROUND

The Upper Digestive Disease (UDD) Tool™ is used to monitor symptom frequency, intensity, and interference across nine symptom domains and includes two Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains assessing physical and mental health. This study aimed to establish cut scores for updated symptom domains through standard setting exercises and evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of virtual standard setting.

METHODS

The extended Angoff method was employed to determine cut scores. Subject matter experts refined performance descriptions for symptom control categories and achieved consensus. Domains were categorized into good, moderate, and poor symptom control. Two cut scores were established, differentiating good vs. moderate and moderate vs. poor. Panelists estimated average scores for 100 borderline patients per item. Cut scores were computed based on the sum of the average ratings for individual questions, converted to 0-100 scale.

RESULTS

Performance descriptions were refined. Panelists discussed that interpretation of the scores should take into account the timing of symptoms after surgery and patient populations, and the importance of items asking symptom frequency, severity, and interference with daily life. The good/moderate cut scores ranged from 21.3 to 35.0 (mean 28.6, SD 3.6) across domains, and moderate/poor ranged from 47.5 to 71.3 (mean 54.5, SD 7.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Panelists were confident in the virtual standard setting process, expecting valid cut scores. Future studies can further validate the cut scores using patient perspectives and collect patient and physician preferences for displaying contextual items on patient- and physician-facing dashboard.

Advances in the clinical use of patient-reported outcomes in thoracic surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly recognized as a clinical tool for measuring and improving patient-centric care. This review provides a summary on recent advances in the use of PROs in the field of thoracic surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

PROs have been used as primary endpoints in clinical trials and observational studies evaluating clinical care pathways and quantifying the benefits of minimally invasive surgical techniques for patients undergoing lung surgery. Qualitative and quantitative research has yielded fundamental insights into which PRO domains are meaningful and valued by patients after lung surgery. Patient experience and recovery after esophagectomy have been further characterized by using PROs. New disease-specific survey tools for patients have been developed to track long-term symptoms after esophageal reconstruction. Patient satisfaction has emerged as the key metric used to gauge the patient centeredness of hospital systems.

SUMMARY

Advances have been made in the application of PROs in multiple areas of thoracic surgery, which include lung and esophageal surgery. The growing focus on the use of PROs in clinical pathways has led to a better understanding on how to optimize patient experience.

Mobile applications in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mobile applications can facilitate or improve gastrointestinal surgical care by benefiting patients, healthcare providers, or both. The extent to which applications are currently in use in gastrointestinal surgical care is largely unknown, as reported in literature. This systematic review was conducted to provide an overview of the available gastrointestinal surgical applications and evaluate their prospects for surgical care provision.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for articles up to October 6th 2022. Articles were considered eligible if they assessed or described mobile applications used in a gastrointestinal surgery setting for healthcare purposes. Two authors independently evaluated selected studies and extracted data for analysis. Descriptive data analysis was conducted. The revised Cochrane risk of bias (RoB-2) tool and ROBINS-I assessment tool were used to determine the methodological quality of studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight articles describing twenty-nine applications were included. The applications were classified into seven categories: monitoring, weight loss, postoperative recovery, education, communication, prognosis, and clinical decision-making. Most applications were reported for colorectal surgery, half of which focused on monitoring. Overall, a low-quality evidence was found. Most applications have only been evaluated on their usability or feasibility but not on the proposed clinical benefits. Studies with high quality evidence were identified in the areas of colorectal (2), hepatopancreatobiliary (1) and bariatric surgery (1), reporting significantly positive outcomes in terms of postoperative recovery, complications and weight loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The interest for applications and their use in gastrointestinal surgery is increasing. From our study, it appears that most studies using applications fail to report adequate clinical evaluation, and do not provide evidence on the effectiveness or safety of applications. Clinical evaluation of objective outcomes is much needed to evaluate the efficacy, quality and safety of applications being used as a medical device across user groups and settings.