Use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure in the management of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: the RePROM pilot trial protocol

Self-reported MeasUrement of Physical and PsychosOcial Symptoms Response Tool (SUPPORT-dialysis): systematic symptom assessment and management in patients on in-centre haemodialysis - a parallel arm, non-randomised feasibility pilot study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patients with kidney failure experience symptoms that are often under-recognised and undermanaged. These symptoms negatively impact health-related quality of life and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Regular symptom assessment, using electronic patient reported outcomes measure (ePROMs) linked to systematic symptom management, could improve such outcomes. Clinical implementation of ePROMs have been successful in routine oncology care, but not used for patients on dialysis. In this study, we describe a pilot study of ePROM-based systematic symptom monitoring and management intervention in patients treated with in-centre haemodialysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a parallel-arm, controlled pilot of adult patients receiving in-centre maintenance haemodialysis. Participants in the intervention arm will complete ePROMs once a month for 6 months. ePROMs will be scored real time and the results will be shared with participants and with the clinical team. Moderate-severe symptoms will be flagged using established cut-off scores. Referral options for those symptoms will be shared with the clinical team, and additional symptom management resources will also be provided for both participants and clinicians. Participants in the control arm will be recruited at a different dialysis unit, to prevent contamination. They will receive usual care, except that they will complete ePROMs without the presentation of results to participants of the clinical team. The primary objectives of the pilot are to assess (1) the feasibility of a larger, randomised clinical effectiveness trial and (2) the acceptability of the intervention. Interviews conducted with participants and staff will be assessed using a content analysis approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University Health Network (REB#21-5199) and the William Osler Health System (#23-0005). All study procedures will be conducted in accordance with the standards of University Health Network research ethics board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Results of this study will be shared with participants, patients on dialysis and other stakeholders using lay language summaries, oral presentations to patients and nephrology professionals. We will also be publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal and at scientific meetings.

PROTOCOL VERSION

4 (16 November 2022).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05515991.

Exploring patient perspectives on electronic patient-reported outcome measures in home-based cancer palliative care: A qualitative study

Background

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROMs) enhance symptom management and patients' engagement in palliative cancer care. However, integrating them into this setting brings challenges, including patients' familiarity with technological devices and declining health status. Prioritizing the patient's acceptability and feasibility is crucial for their adoption. However, more knowledge is needed about patients' perspectives on the adoption of ePROMs in the community, especially for home-based palliative care.

Aim

Explore patient viewpoints on utilizing ePROMs for symptom reporting in home-based oncology palliative care.

Design

A qualitative interpretative approach was used to evaluate patients' points of view on using ePROMs in this specific care setting. Semistructured interviews were carried out. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis.

Setting/participants

A total of 25 patients receiving oncological home palliative care from the advanced palliative care unit of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, Italy, were invited to participate. Twenty interviews were conducted, as five patients declined due to deteriorating health.

Results

Four themes were identified: (1) strategic value of ePROMs and subjective appreciation; (2) enhancing patient centeredness through ePROMs; (3) exploring and addressing concerns about the use of ePROMs and (4) intersecting factors influencing the efficacy of ePROMs.

Conclusion

Despite initial reticence, home palliative care patients consider ePROMs as potentially valuable allies monitoring symptoms, enhancing their quality of life, and amplifying their voices on less explored aspects of care. Continuous dialog between healthcare professionals and patients is crucial for addressing patient skepticism about ePROMs and their impact on the human aspect of care.

Global use of electronic patient-reported outcome systems in nephrology: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

The use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems to support the management of patients with chronic kidney disease is increasing. This mixed-methods study aimed to comprehensively identify existing and developing ePRO systems, used in nephrology settings globally, ascertaining key characteristics and factors for successful implementation.

STUDY DESIGN

ePRO systems and developers were identified through a scoping review of the literature and contact with field experts. Developers were invited to participate in a structured survey, to summarise key system characteristics including: (1) system objectives, (2) population, (3) PRO measures used, (4) level of automation, (5) reporting, (6) integration into workflow and (7) links to electronic health records/national registries. Subsequent semistructured interviews were conducted to explore responses.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Eligible systems included those being developed or used in nephrology settings to assess ePROs and summarise results to care providers. System developers included those with a key responsibility for aspects of the design, development or implementation of an eligible system.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Structured survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Interview transcripts were analysed using Codebook Thematic Analysis using domains from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Fifteen unique ePRO systems were identified across seven countries; 10 system developers completed the structured survey and 7 participated in semistructured interviews. Despite system heterogeneity, reported features required for effective implementation included early and sustained patient involvement, clinician champions and expanding existing electronic platforms to integrate ePROs. Systems demonstrated several common features, with the majority being implemented within research settings, thereby affecting system implementation readiness for real-world application.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been considerable research investment in ePRO systems. The findings of this study outline key system features and factors to support the successful implementation of ePROs in routine kidney care.Cite Now.

Patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures in liver transplantation: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Generic or condition-specific Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are used to measure physical, mental, and social aspects of health to promote patient-centered care. This scoping review aims to identify and summarize generic and condition-specific PRO domains and PROMs that have been assessed and used in liver transplant (LT) candidates and recipients.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Register of Trials, PsychInfo, and CINAHL from inception to 08/26/2020. Included studies addressed a PRO or PROM in LT candidates or recipients.

RESULTS

After screening, 341 studies yielded 189 unique PRO domains. Mental health domains (depression, anxiety, and guilt) were most frequently assessed, followed by domains of physical and social health. Fifty-one generic and three condition-specific unique PROMs were identified, with only 13% (n = 45) of studies including condition-specific tools.

DISCUSSION

The most frequent PROMs were the SF-36, Nottingham Health Profile, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, followed by the Liver Disease Quality of Life (LDQoL). Very few studies used transplant-specific PROMs, which may partly be related to the scarcity of LT-specific instruments. We will use these results in future qualitative research to identify PROs and PROMs to build an electronic PROM toolkit to facilitate patient-centered LT care.

Dental patient-reported outcomes following traumatic dental injuries and treatment: A narrative review

Dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) are self-reported descriptions of a patient's oral health status that are not modified or interpreted by a healthcare professional. Dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) are objective or subjective measurements used to assess dPROs. In oral healthcare settings, the emphasis on assessing treatment outcomes from the patient's perspective has increased and this is particularly important after traumatic dental injuries (TDIs), as this group of injuries represent the fifth most prevalent disease or condition worldwide. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current use of dPROs and dPROMs in the field of dental traumatology. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, pain, swelling, aesthetics, function, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, number of clinical visits and trauma-related dental anxiety are the key dPROs following TDIs. Clinicians and researchers should consider the well-being of patients as their top priority and conduct routine evaluations of dPROs using measures that are appropriate, accurate and reflect what is important to the patient. After a TDI, dPROs can assist clinicians and patients to choose the best management option(s) for each individual patient and potentially improve the methodology, design and relevance of clinical studies.

Perspectives of Patients, Nurses, and Nephrologists About Electronic Symptom Monitoring With Feedback in Hemodialysis Care

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Patients receiving hemodialysis experience high symptom burden and low quality of life (QOL). Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) monitoring with feedback to clinicians may be an acceptable intervention to improve health-related QOL for patients receiving hemodialysis. This study explored patient and clinician perspectives on e-PROMs monitoring with feedback to clinicians.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

41 participants (12 patients, 13 nephrologists, 16 dialysis nurses) who participated in a 6-month feasibility pilot study of adults receiving facility-based hemodialysis across 4 Australian units. The intervention consisted of electronic symptom monitoring with feedback to clinicians, who also received evidence-based symptom management recommendations to improve health-related QOL.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Semistructured interviews and focus group discussions explored the feasibility and acceptability of e-PROMs monitoring with feedback to clinicians. We conducted a thematic analysis of transcripts.

RESULTS

We identified 4 themes: enabling efficient, systematic, and multidisciplinary patient-centered care; experiencing limited data and options for symptom management; requiring familiarity with technology and processes; and identifying barriers and competing priorities. While insufficient patient engagement, logistic/technical challenges, and delayed symptom feedback emerged as barriers to implementation, active engagement by nurses in encouraging and supporting patients during survey completion and clinicians' prompt action after symptom feedback were considered to be facilitators to implementation.

LIMITATIONS

Limited generalizability due to inclusion of English-speaking participants only.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients, nurses, and nephrologists considered e-PROMs monitoring with feedback to clinicians feasible for symptom management in hemodialysis. Clinician engagement, patient support, reliable technology, timely symptom feedback, and interventions to address symptom burden are likely to improve its implementation within research and clinical settings.

Results of a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial exploring the use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure in the management of UK patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVES

The use of routine remote follow-up of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing exponentially. It has been suggested that online electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) could be used in parallel, to facilitate real-time symptom monitoring aimed at improving outcomes. We tested the feasibility of this approach in a pilot trial of ePROM symptom monitoring versus usual care in patients with advanced CKD not on dialysis.

DESIGN

A 12-month, parallel, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) and qualitative substudy.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, UK. Adult patients with advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥6 and ≤15 mL/min/1.73 m², or a projected risk of progression to kidney failure within 2 years ≥20%).

INTERVENTION

Monthly online ePROM symptom reporting, including automated feedback of tailored self-management advice and triggered clinical notifications in the advent of severe symptoms. Real-time ePROM data were made available to the clinical team via the electronic medical record.

OUTCOMES

Feasibility (recruitment and retention rates, and acceptability/adherence to the ePROM intervention). Health-related quality of life, clinical data (eg, measures of kidney function, kidney failure, hospitalisation, death) and healthcare utilisation.

RESULTS

52 patients were randomised (31% of approached). Case report form returns were high (99.5%), as was retention (96%). Overall, 73% of expected ePROM questionnaires were received. Intervention adherence was high beyond 90 days (74%) and 180 days (65%); but dropped beyond 270 days (46%). Qualitative interviews supported proof of concept and intervention acceptability, but highlighted necessary changes aimed at enhancing overall functionality/scalability of the ePROM system.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot trial demonstrates that patients are willing to be randomised to a trial assessing ePROM symptom monitoring. The intervention was considered acceptable; though measures to improve longer-term engagement are needed. A full-scale RCT is considered feasible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12669006 and the UK NIHR Portfolio (CPMS ID: 36497).

Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assess a patient's subjective appraisal of health outcomes from their own perspective. Despite hypothesised benefits that feedback  on PROMs can support decision-making in clinical practice and improve outcomes, there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of PROMs feedback.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PROMs feedback to patients, or healthcare workers, or both on patient-reported health outcomes and processes of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, two other databases and two clinical trial registries on 5 October 2020. We searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We included randomised trials directly comparing the effects on outcomes and processes of care of PROMs feedback to healthcare professionals and patients, or both with the impact of not providing such information.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted meta-analyses of the results where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 116 randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of PROMs feedback in improving processes or outcomes of care, or both in a broad range of disciplines including psychiatry, primary care, and oncology. Studies were conducted across diverse ambulatory primary and secondary care settings in North America, Europe and Australasia. A total of 49,785 patients were included across all the studies. The certainty of the evidence varied between very low and moderate. Many of the studies included in the review were at risk of performance and detection bias. The evidence suggests moderate certainty that PROMs feedback probably improves quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.26; 11 studies; 2687 participants), and leads to an increase in patient-physician communication (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52; 5 studies; 658 participants), diagnosis and notation (risk ratio (RR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08; 21 studies; 7223 participants), and disease control (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 14 studies; 2806 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference for general health perceptions (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24; 2 studies, 552 participants; low-certainty evidence), social functioning (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 15 studies; 2632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.08; 9 studies; 2386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of PROMs feedback on physical functioning (14 studies; 2788 participants) and mental functioning (34 studies; 7782 participants), as well as fatigue (4 studies; 741 participants), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to PROM completion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PROM feedback probably produces moderate improvements in communication between healthcare professionals and patients as well as in diagnosis and notation, and disease control, and small improvements to quality of life. Our confidence in the effects is limited by the risk of bias, heterogeneity and small number of trials conducted to assess outcomes of interest. It is unclear whether   many of these improvements are clinically meaningful or sustainable in the long term. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, particularly studies which employ cluster designs and utilise techniques to maintain allocation concealment.

Using patient-reported outcome measures during the management of patients with end-stage kidney disease requiring treatment with haemodialysis (PROM-HD): a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Patients undergoing haemodialysis report elevated symptoms and reduced health-related quality of life, and often prioritise improvements in psychosocial well-being over long-term survival. Systematic collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may help support tailored healthcare and improve outcomes. This study investigates the methodological basis for routine PRO assessment, particularly using electronic formats (ePROs), to maximise the potential of PRO use, through exploration of the experiences, views and perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on implementation and use of PROs in haemodialysis settings.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Semistructured interviews with 22 patients undergoing haemodialysis, and 17 HCPs in the UK.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Transcripts were analysed deductively using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and inductively using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

For effective implementation, the potential value of PROs needs to be demonstrated empirically to stakeholders. Any intervention must remain flexible enough for individual and aggregate use, measuring outcomes that matter to patients and clinicians, while maintaining operational simplicity. Any implementation must sit within a wider framework of education and support for both patients and clinicians who demonstrate varying previous experience of using PROs and often confuse related concepts. Implementation plans must recognise the multidimensionality of end-stage kidney disease and treatment by haemodialysis, while acknowledging the associated challenges of delivering care in a highly specialised environment. To support implementation, careful consideration needs to be given to barriers and facilitators including effective leadership, the role of champions, effective launch and ongoing evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the CFIR to explore the experiences, views and perceptions of key stakeholders, this study identified key factors at organisational and individual levels which could assist effective implementation of ePROs in haemodialysis settings. Further research will be required to evaluate subsequent ePRO interventions to demonstrate the impact and benefit to the dialysis community.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

An Evidence-Based Theory About PRO Use in Kidney Care: A Realist Synthesis

BACKGROUND

There is international interest on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in nephrology.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to develop a kidney-specific program theory about use of PROs in nephrology that may enhance person-centered care, both at individual and aggregated levels of care, and to test and refine this theory through a systematic review of the empirical literature. Together, these objectives articulate what works or does not work, for whom, and why.

METHODS

Realist synthesis methodology guided the electronic database and gray literature searches (in January 2017 and October 2018), screening, and extraction conducted independently by three reviewers. Sources included all nephrology patients and/or practitioners. Through a process of extraction and synthesis, each included source was examined to assess how contexts may trigger mechanisms to influence specific outcomes.

RESULTS

After screening 19,961 references, 84 theoretical and 34 empirical sources were used. PROs are proposed to be useful for providing nephrology care through three types of use. The first type is use of individual-level PRO data at point of care, receiving the majority of theoretical and empirical explorations. Clinician use to support person-centered care, and patient use to support patient engagement, are purported to improve satisfaction, health, and quality of life. Contextual factors specific to the kidney care setting that may influence the use of PRO data include the complexity of kidney disease symptom burden, symptoms that may be stigmatized, comorbidities, and time or administrative constraints in dialysis settings. Electronic collection of PROs may facilitate PRO use given these contexts. The second type is use of aggregated PRO data at point of care, including public reporting of PROs to inform decisions at point of care and improve quality of care, and use of PROs for treatment decisions. The third type is use of aggregated PRO data by organizations, including publicly available PRO data to compare centers. In single-payer systems, regular collection of PROs by dialysis centers can be achieved through economic incentives. Both the second and third types of PRO use include pressures that may trigger quality improvement processes.

CONCLUSION

The current state of the evidence is primarily theoretical. There is pressing need for empirical research to improve the evidence-base of PRO use at individual and aggregated levels of nephrology care.

The role of kidney registries in expediting large-scale collection of patient-reported outcome measures for people with chronic kidney disease

In this issue of Clinical Kidney Journal, Van der Willik et al. report findings from a pilot study where they introduced collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into routine kidney care in Dutch dialysis centres. It is comparable to a registry-led PROMs initiative in Sweden, published in Clinical Kidney Journal in 2020. Both studies reported low average PROMs response rates with substantial between-centre variation, and both identified suboptimal patient and staff engagement as a key barrier to implementing PROMs in routine care for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This suggests that national kidney registries could be well placed to facilitate large-scale collection of PROMs data, but that they may require additional guidance on how to do this successfully. In this editorial, we discuss the current state-of-play of PROMs collection by kidney registries and provide an overview of what is (un)known about the feasibility and effectiveness of PROMs in CKD and other conditions. We anticipate that the fast-growing evidence base on whether, and how, PROMs can be of value in CKD settings will expedite registry-based PROMs collection, which will ultimately lead to more valuable and person-centred services and to enhanced health and well-being of people with CKD.

Rapid Electronic Capturing of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Older Adults With End-Stage Renal Disease: A Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have a high burden of physical and psychological symptoms. Many remain unrecognized for long periods of time, particularly in older adults. The best strategy to monitor patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has not been identified.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of implementing an iPad-based symptom assessment tool in older adults with ESRD on hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

We designed an iPad application-delivery system for collecting electronic PROMs (ePROMs). Patient's ≥60 years of age with ESRD on HD were recruited from a single outpatient dialysis unit. Feasibility was evaluated based on recruitment, retention, and the system usability score (SUS). Assessments were completed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after enrollment. ANOVA was used to assess longitudinal symptom variability.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (49% recruitment rate) were enrolled, with an 82% retention at 6 months. Mean age was 69.4 years (SD 6.6), 63.6% were female, and 81.8% were African American. Participants reported minimal difficulty in using the app, with an overall SUS score of 77.6. There were no significant relationships between demographic characteristics (age, race, or education) and SUS. Baseline SF-12 physical score and SF-12 mental score were 40.4 (SD 9.1) and 33.9 (SD 6.7), respectively. No significant changes were seen in longitudinal ePROMs of pain, depression, or anxiety; but was seen in the dialysis symptom index.

CONCLUSION

In older patients with ESRD, collection of iPad-based ePROMs is feasible. This process can overcome inefficiencies associated with paper questionnaires and enable systematic monitoring of symptom burden.

Development of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) system to aid the management of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

Background

Effective management of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) relies on timely detection of clinical deterioration towards end stage kidney failure. We aimed to design an electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (ePROM) system, which would allow patients with advanced CKD (pre-dialysis) to: (i) remotely self-report their symptoms using a simple and secure online platform; (ii) share the data with the clinical team in real-time via the electronic patient record to help optimise care. We adopted a staged development process which included: a systematic review of PROMs used in CKD; formation of a co-design team; prototype system design/development, user acceptance testing and refinement; finalisation of the system for testing in a pilot/feasibility trial.

Results

A co-design team was convened, including patients with lived experience of CKD; clinical team members; IT/Informatics experts; academics; and Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit representatives. A prototype system was developed and iterative changes made before finalisation during a series of operational meetings. The system allows patients to remotely self-report their symptoms; provides tailored self-management advice; allows monitoring of real-time patient ePROM data; sends automated notifications to the patient/clinical team in the advent of a severe symptom report; and incorporates longitudinal ePROM symptom data into the electronic patient record. Feasibility of the system will be evaluated as part of the National Institute for Health Research funded RePROM (Renal electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure) pilot trial (ISRCTN12669006).

Conclusions

Routine ePROM collection with real-time feedback has the potential to improve outcomes and reduce health service costs. We have successfully developed a trial-ready ePROM system for advanced CKD, the feasibility of which is currently being explored in a pilot trial. Assuming feasibility is demonstrated, formal evaluation of efficacy will take place in a future multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems

Introduction

Recent advances in information technology and improved access to the internet have led to a rapid increase in the adoption and ownership of electronic devices such as touch screen smartphones and tablet computers. This has also led to a renewed interest in the field of digital health also referred to as telehealth or electronic health (eHealth). There is now a drive to collect these PROs electronically using ePRO systems.

Method

However, the user interfaces of ePRO systems need to be adequately assessed to ensure they are not only fit for purpose but also acceptable to patients who are the end users. Usability testing is a technique that involves the testing of systems, products or websites with participants drawn from the target population. Usability testing can assist ePRO developers in the evaluation of ePRO user interface. The complexity of ePRO systems; stage of development; metrics to measure; and the use of scenarios, moderators and appropriate sample sizes are key methodological issues to consider when planning usability tests.

Conclusion

The findings from usability testing may facilitate the improvement of ePRO systems making them more usable and acceptable to end users. This may in turn improve the adoption of ePRO systems post-implementation. This article highlights the key methodological issues to consider and address when planning usability testing of ePRO systems.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Management of Advanced CKD: A Qualitative Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can substantially affect patients' health-related quality of life. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) may capture symptoms and health-related quality of life and assist in the management of CKD. This study explored patient and clinician views on the use of a renal ePROM system.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

12 patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (non-dialysis dependent); 22 clinicians (6 CKD community nurses, 1 clinical psychologist, 10 nephrologists, 3 specialist registrars, and 2 renal surgeons) in the United Kingdom.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion during which patients received paper versions of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 and the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale-Renal to exemplify the type of content that could be included in an ePROM. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

RESULTS

4 themes were identified: (1) general opinions of PROMs, (2) potential benefits and applications of an ePROM system, (3) practical considerations for the implementation of ePROMs, and (4) concerns, barriers, and facilitators. Patients were willing to complete ePROMs on a regular basis as part of their care despite clinician concerns about patient burden. Patients assessed the questionnaires favorably. Clinicians suggested that the extent of adoption of renal ePROM systems in routine clinical settings should be based on evidence of significant impact on patient outcomes. Clinicians were concerned that an ePROM system may raise patient expectations to unrealistic levels and expose clinicians to the risk for litigation. Patients and clinicians identified potential benefits and highlighted issues and concerns that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of the renal ePROM system.

LIMITATIONS

Transferability of the findings may be limited because only English-speaking participants were recruited to the study.

CONCLUSIONS

A renal ePROM system may play a supportive role in the routine clinical management of patients with advanced CKD if the concerns of clinicians and patients can be sufficiently addressed.