Selection of patient reported outcomes questions reflecting symptoms for patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immunotherapy

Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into the Care of People With Advanced Cancer-A Practical Guide

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are being increasingly integrated into routine clinical practice to enhance individual patient care. This has been driven by recognition of the benefits of PROs in enhancing symptom management, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and overall survival, and reductions in acute health care utilization. These benefits are reflected in the emergence of value-based health care initiatives incorporating PRO symptom monitoring such as the Enhancing Oncology Model in the United States. However, implementing PROs can be challenging and it can be difficult to know where to begin to select appropriate PROs, and effectively display and appropriately interpret PRO data. This manuscript summarizes an educational session at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, which provided practical guidance to clinicians seeking to incorporate PROs into the care of people with advanced cancer. We focus on why it is important to collect PROs in routine care from a patient's perspective, how to select PROs for symptom monitoring (including using static patient-reported outcome measures and newer item libraries), and highlight key pearls and pitfalls in the display and interpretation of PROs. We highlight the breadth of existing resources available to guide clinicians in PRO implementation.

Registry study of immune-related adverse events using electronic patient-reported outcome in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: protocol for a multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is rapidly expanding in cancer treatment. ICIs have a unique safety profile, characterised by immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The safety profile of ICIs lacks patient experience and perspectives. This study primarily aims to obtain a database for descriptive research on the status of irAEs using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria (PRO-CTCAE) in patients with gastrointestinal cancer, lung cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma treated with regimens containing ICIs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an ongoing, multicentre, observational study in Japan. Eligible patients must be at least 20 years old and have been diagnosed with lung cancer, malignant pleural mesothelioma or gastrointestinal cancer and plan to use ICIs. Participants will install the electronic PRO (ePRO) application and report adverse events via ePRO using PRO-CTCAE once weekly for up to 48 weeks. A registry will be established using background information obtained from medical records. The sample size is determined by 1 year projection without using statistical methods. Statistical analyses will include point estimates and 95% CIs for the incidence of each adverse event by cancer type and regimen at each time point.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research will be conducted per the Declaration of Helsinki, the Ethical Guidelines for Life Science and Medical Research Involving Human Subjects issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, and the revised Personal Information Protection Law. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee (approval ID T2021-0180) of Tokyo Medical University Hospital on 15 October 2021.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

The study began enrolling patients in December 2021. The target enrolment is 260; as of October 2022, 141 have been enrolled, and the enrolment is scheduled to end on 30 June 2023.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000046418.

Evaluating Immune-Related Adverse Events Using PRO-CTCAE in a Phase II Study of Ipilimumab for Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

Introduction

 Use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) during chemotherapy is associated with decreased hospitalization rates, improved quality of life, and longer survival. Limited data exist on the benefit of this symptom assessment tool for monitoring immune-related adverse events (irAEs).

Methods

 We incorporated irAE-related items from the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) PRO-CTCAE in a trial evaluating ipilimumab in combination with androgen deprivation therapy in 16 patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For comparison, NCI's CTCAE version 4.0 was used by clinicians.

Results

 IrAE-related PRO-CTCAE surveys and matched CTCAEs (184 pairs) reporting abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, rash, and pruritus were collected at each treatment administration and during follow-up. Fatigue, diarrhea, rash, and pruritus were the symptoms most frequently reported by both patients and clinicians. Agreement was lowest for pruritus (κ = 0.10) and highest for rash (κ = 0.64). IrAEs were more commonly reported and of higher grade with PRO-CTCAE scores compared with CTCAE grades.

Conclusion

 PRO-CTCAEs focused on irAEs capture the patient's immunotherapy experience while complementing the clinician's toxicity assessment measures. Further study is needed to assess PRO-CTCAE's utility in identifying and managing irAEs.

A multi-method approach to selecting PRO-CTCAE symptoms for patient-reported outcome in women with endometrial or ovarian cancer undergoing chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Women with endometrial or ovarian cancer experience a variety of symptoms during chemotherapy. Patient-Reported outcomes (PROs) can provide insight into the symptoms they experience. A PRO tool tailored to this patient population can help accurately monitor adverse events and manage symptoms. The objective of this study was to identify items in the National Cancer Institute's measurement system Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) appropriate for use in a PRO tool for a population of women with endometrial or ovarian cancer undergoing treatment with taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) in combination with carboplatin.

METHODS

A two-phase, sequential multi-methods approach was applied. In phase one, a comprehensive literature search was done to map the toxicity of the applied chemotherapeutics and phase III clinical studies. Phase two, which comprised selecting the PRO-CTCAE items, included discussions with and feedback from a patient advisory board, an additional literature search, and focus group interviews with senior oncologists and specialized oncology nurses. A national expert panel facilitated both phases in terms of carefully select items from the PRO-CTCAE library.

RESULTS

Phase one identified 18 symptoms and phase two, three additional ones, leading to the inclusion of 21 PRO-CTCAE symptoms in the final PRO tool. Since PRO-CTCAE also contains one to three sub-questions on the frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities of symptoms, there were 44 potential items.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes taking a multi-method approach to selecting items from the PRO-CTCAE library for use in a population of women with endometrial or ovarian cancer undergoing chemotherapy. By systematically combining diverse approaches, we carefully selected 21 clinically relevant symptoms covered by 44 items in the PRO-CTCAE library. Future studies should investigate the psychometric properties of this PRO tool for women with endometrial or ovarian cancer.

Developing tumor-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets: analysis of a cross-sectional survey in three German outpatient cancer centers

BACKGROUND

To include the patient perspective in the assessment of adverse events in oncology, a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was developed by the US National Cancer Institute, the so called PRO-CTCAE. The objective of this study was the development of disease-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets for patients with breast cancer (BC), multiple myeloma (MM), and prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

The cross-sectional survey was conducted at three German outpatient cancer centers. Prevalence and importance of the 78 PRO-CTCAE symptoms were assessed using a patient questionnaire. To select the most relevant PRO-CTCAE items for each tumor entity, symptoms were ranked based on patient answers.

RESULTS

101 patients with BC, 107 with MM, and 66 with PC participated. The final item sets contained 21 symptoms (BC) or 19 symptoms (MM and PC), respectively. Eight symptoms (fatigue, muscle pain, insomnia, joint pain, general pain, dizziness, shortness of breath, and swelling) were represented in all three item sets. Fatigue was the symptom with the highest ranking across item sets followed by insomnia. Symptoms with the highest rankings represented in only one item set were symptoms affecting the urogenital system in the PC item set, blurred vision in the BC item set, and decreased appetite in the MM item set.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual PRO-CTCAE item sets for a German patient population were developed for the three tumor entities on the basis of patients' differences in symptom profiles and perceptions. The quality and psychometric criteria of the newly compiled item sets should be evaluated in validation studies.

Development of an eHealth Tool for Capturing and Analyzing the Immune-related Adverse Events (irAEs) in Cancer Treatment

Introduction

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancer, but it is associated with a myriad of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been identified as valuable tools for continuously collecting patient-centered data and are frequently used in oncology trials. However, few studies still research an ePRO follow-up approach on patients treated with Immunotherapy, potentially reflecting a lack of support services for this population.

Methods

The team co-developed a digital platform (V-Care) using ePROs to create a new follow-up pathway for cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. To operationalize the first 3 phases of the CeHRes roadmap, we employed multiple methods that were integrated throughout the development process, rather than being performed in a linear fashion. The teams employed an agile approach in a dynamic and iterative manner, engaging key stakeholders throughout the process.

Results

The development of the application was categorized into 2 phases: "user interface" (UI) and "user experience" (UX) designs. In the first phase, the pages of the application were segmented into general categories, and feedback from all stakeholders was received and used to modify the application. In phase 2, mock-up pages were developed and sent to the Figma website. Moreover, the Android Package Kit (APK) of the application was installed and tested multiple times on a mobile phone to proactively detect and fix any errors. After resolving some technical issues and adjusting errors on the Android version to improve the user experience, the iOS version of the application was developed.

Discussion

By incorporating the latest technological developments, V-Care has enabled cancer patients to have access to more comprehensive and personalized care, allowing them to better manage their condition and be better informed about their health decisions. These advances have also enabled healthcare professionals to be better equipped with the knowledge and tools to provide more effective and efficient care. In addition, the advances in V-Care technology have allowed patients to connect with their healthcare providers more easily, providing a platform to facilitate communication and collaboration. Although usability testing is necessary to evaluate the efficacy and user experience of the app, it can be a significant investment of time and resources.

Conclusion

The V-Care platform can be used to investigate the reported symptoms experienced by cancer patients receiving Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and to compare them with the results from clinical trials. Furthermore, the project will utilize ePRO tools to collect symptoms from patients and provide insight into whether the reported symptoms are linked to the treatment.

Clinical Relevance

V-Care provides a secure, easy-to-use interface for patient-clinician communication and data exchange. Its clinical system stores and manages patient data in a secure environment, while its clinical decision support system helps clinicians make decisions that are more informed, efficient, and cost-effective. This system has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care, while also helping to reduce healthcare costs.

The Feasibility, Acceptability, and Effectiveness of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Toxicities: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in routine cancer care will increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Systems are needed to support remote monitoring for irAEs. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring systems can help monitor and manage symptoms and side effects. We assessed the content and features of ePRO symptom monitoring systems for irAEs, and their feasibility, acceptability, and impact on patient outcomes and health care utilization.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2022 on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review questions were extracted and synthesized in tables.

RESULTS

Seven papers describing five ePRO systems were included. All systems collected PROs between clinic visits. Two of five used validated symptom questionnaires, 3/5 provided prompts to complete questionnaires, 4/5 provided reminders to self-report, and 3/5 provided clinician alerts for severe/worsening side effects. Four of five provided coverage of ≥26/30 irAEs in the ASCO irAE guideline. Feasibility and acceptability were demonstrated with consent rates of 54%-100%, 17%-27% of questionnaires generating alerts, and adherence rates of 74%-75%. One paper showed a reduction in grade 3-4 irAEs, treatment discontinuation, clinic visit duration, and emergency department presentations, while another showed no difference in these outcomes or the rate of steroid use.

CONCLUSION

There is preliminary evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of ePRO symptom monitoring for irAEs. However, further studies are needed to confirm the impact on ICI-specific outcomes, such as the frequency of grade 3-4 irAEs and duration of immunosuppression. Suggestions for the content and features of future ePRO systems for irAEs are provided.

Impact of patient-reported outcomes on symptom monitoring during treatment with checkpoint inhibitors: health-related quality of life among melanoma patients in a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

In a randomized controlled trial, we previously investigated if melanoma patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors had fewer severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) when they reported symptoms using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) with triggered alerts as an add-on to standard care, compared to standard care alone. The aim of this study is to examine between-group differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and associations between irAEs severity and HRQoL.

Methods

The study population of 138 patients completed the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L Index and FACT-M questionnaires at baseline and weeks 24 and 48. We analyzed HRQoL from all patients who completed at least one questionnaire. Missing FACT-M items were imputed following existing guidelines.

Results

There was no difference in HRQoL at baseline as measured EQ-5D-5L between the intervention and the control group. Between baseline and 48 weeks, mean EQ-5D-5L scores were unchanged among patients in the intervention group (p = 0.81) but decreased significantly among patients in the control group (p = 0.03). Consequently, patients in the intervention group had higher mean scores than those in the control group (p = 0.05) at 48 weeks. Mean FACT-M scores did not differ significantly between the two groups at any of the time points. There were observed no between-group differences in mean EQ-5D-5 and mean FACT-M scores between patients with severe irAEs and patients who had none.

Conclusion

Melanoma patients receiving CPIs who self-reported irAEs using ePRO with triggered alerts as a supplement to standard care maintained their HRQoL compared to patients who received standard care alone. Patients in the intervention group had a significantly better HRQoL measured by EQ-5D-5L than controls 48 weeks after baseline. The results suggest that including ePRO in standard care increases melanoma patients´ well-being. Further and larger studies are needed to confirm this finding and examine the impact of severe irAEs on cancer patients’ HRQoL.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03073031 Registered 8 March 2017, Retrospectively registeredhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00414-5.

Patient-reported outcomes for monitoring symptomatic toxicities in cancer patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors: A Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may not be fully covered by existing measures like the PRO-CTCAE™. Selecting PRO-CTCAE™ items for monitoring symptomatic adverse events is hindered by the heterogeneity and complexity of IrAEs, and no standardised selection process exists. We aimed to reach expert consensus on the PRO-CTCAE™ symptom terms relevant for cancer patients receiving ICIs and to gather preliminary expert opinions about additional symptom terms reflecting ICI symptomatic toxicities. Additionally, we gathered expert consensus about a core set of priority symptom terms for prospective surveillance and monitoring.

DESIGN

This Delphi study involved an international panel of experts (n = 6 physicians; n = 3 nurses, n = 1 psychiatrist and n = 1 patient advocates). Experts prioritised the relevance and importance of symptom terms to monitor in patients treated with ICIs.

RESULTS

Experts reached a consensus on the relevance of all (n = 80) PRO-CTCAE™ Symptom Terms. Consensus on the importance of these symptom terms for prospective monitoring in patients receiving ICIs was reached for 81% (n = 65) of these terms. Additional symptoms terms (n = 56) were identified, with a consensus that 84% (47/56) of these additional symptom terms should also be considered when monitoring symptomatic IrAEs.

CONCLUSION

This study identified a prioritised list of symptom terms for prospective surveillance for symptomatic IrAEs in patients receiving ICI treatment. Our results indicate the need to strengthen the validity of PRO measures used to monitor patients receiving ICIs. While these results provided some support for the content validity of the PRO CTCAE™ and resulted in a preliminary set of salient symptomatic adverse events related to the use of ICIs, broader international agreement and patient involvement are needed to further validate our initial findings.

Selecting a Subset Based on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events for Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring in Lung Cancer Treatment: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) item library covers a wide range of symptoms relevant to oncology care. There is a need to select a subset of items relevant to specific patient populations to enable the implementation of PRO-CTCAE-based symptom monitoring in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to develop a PRO-CTCAE-based subset relevant to patients with lung cancer that can be used for monitoring during multidisciplinary clinical practice.

METHODS

The PRO-CTCAE-based subset for patients with lung cancer was generated using a mixed methods approach based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines for developing questionnaires, comprising a literature review and semistructured interviews with both patients with lung cancer and health care practitioners (HCPs). Both patients and HCPs were queried on the relevance and impact of all PRO-CTCAE items. The results were summarized, and after a final round of expert review, a selection of clinically relevant items for patients with lung cancer was made.

RESULTS

A heterogeneous group of patients with lung cancer (n=25) from different treatment modalities and HCPs (n=22) participated in the study. A final list of eight relevant PRO-CTCAE items was created: decreased appetite, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, constipation, nausea, sadness, and pain (general).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the literature and both professional and patient input, a subset of PRO-CTCAE items has been identified for use in patients with lung cancer in clinical practice. Future work is needed to confirm the validity and effectiveness of this PRO-CTCAE-based lung cancer subset internationally and in real-world clinical practice settings.

Development of patient-reported outcomes item set to evaluate acute treatment toxicity to pelvic online magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy

Background

A new technology in cancer treatment, the MR-linac, provides online magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) that combines real-time visualization of the tumor and surrounding tissue with radiation therapy to deliver treatment more accurately. Online MRgRT makes it possible to minimize treatment volume, potentially reducing acute treatment toxicity. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) add the patient perspective to evaluating treatment toxicity related to new technology. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to develop and explore the content validity of a set of PRO items to evaluate acute pelvic toxicity to radiotherapy including online MRgRT.

Methods

A literature review and chart audit were conducted to identify symptomatic adverse events (AEs) to be selected from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) library and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) item library. To validate the content, the item set was applied in a prospective pilot cohort of patients referred for primary pelvic RT with curative intent. Patients reported symptoms weekly during RT (4–8 weeks) and the subsequent 4 weeks. Follow-up reports were collected at 8, 12, and 24 weeks after RT. To ensure symptom coverage clinician-reported toxicity and individual patient interviews were conducted. The symptomatic AEs were included in the final item set if ≥20% of patients reported them.

Results

Eighteen acute symptomatic AEs were selected for the initial item set. Forty patients (32 prostate cancer, 8 cervical cancer) were included in the pilot study. Patients with prostate cancer and those with cervical cancer both reported all 18 acute AEs. However, vomiting was not reported by > 20% of patients thus excluded from the item set. Adding a few diagnosis-specific AEs to the final item set was required for both prostate and cervical cancer patients.

Conclusions

A PRO item set for patients with pelvic cancer treated with radiotherapy with a curative intent was developed and content validity explored. In the pilot study, the item set captured the most common acute symptomatic AEs for patients with prostate and cervical cancer related to pelvic RT including online MRgRT. Further validation of the content in broader disease sites would be needed in future studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-021-00326-w.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials Leading to Cancer Immunotherapy Drug Approvals From 2011 to 2018: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) promote patient centeredness in clinical trials; however, in the field of rapidly emerging and clinically impressive immunotherapy, data on PROs are limited.

METHODS

We systematically identified all immunotherapy approvals from 2011 through 2018 and assessed the analytic tools and reporting quality of associated PRO reports. For randomized clinical trials (RCTs), we developed a novel 24-point scoring scale: the PRO Endpoints Analysis Score based on 24 criteria derived from the recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium.

RESULTS

We assessed 44 trial publications supporting 42 immunotherapy approvals. PROs were published for 21 of the 44 (47.7%) trial publications. Twenty-three trials (52.3%) were RCTs and 21 (47.7%) pertained to single-arm trials. The median time between primary clinical outcomes publications and their corresponding secondary PRO publications was 19 months (interquartile range = 9-29 months). Of the 21 PRO reports, 4 (19.0%) reported a specific hypothesis, and most (85.7%) used descriptive statistics. Three (3 of 21 [14.3%]) studies performed a control for type I error. As for RCTs, 14 of 23 (60.9%) published PRO data, including 13 (56.5%) that published a secondary dedicated manuscript. One-half of these 14 trials scored less than 13 points on the 24-point PRO Endpoints Analysis Score. The mean score was 12.71 (range = 5-17, SD = 3.71), and none met all the recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium.

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal reporting of PROs occurs regularly in cancer immunotherapy trials. Increased efforts are needed to maximize the value of these data in cancer immunotherapy development and approval.

The use of patient-reported outcomes to detect adverse events in metastatic melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy: a randomized controlled pilot trial

Background

A randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted to assess if melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy had the number of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during treatment reduced by 50% using a tailored electronic patient-reported outcomes tool in addition to standard toxicity monitoring compared to standard monitoring alone. Secondary endpoints were: if more AEs were reported in the intervention group, if there was a difference between the two groups in the number of telephone consultations, extra out-patient visits, number of days in the hospital, days in steroid treatment and the time patients experienced grade 2 or higher toxicity.

Patients and methods

Melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy at the Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark participated. Standard care included assessment of AEs by a clinician before each treatment cycle using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. In addition, patients randomized to the intervention reported their AEs weekly by an electronic PRO-tool based on the PRO-CTCAE platform.

Results

One hundred forty-six melanoma patients were randomized. In this study, we did not detect a difference between the two groups in the number of grade 3 or 4 AEs (P = 0.983), in the overall number of AEs (P = 0.560) or in the time the patients in the two groups experienced grade 2 or higher toxicity (0.516). The number of phone contacts was significantly higher in the intervention group (P = 0.009) and there was a tendency towards patients in the intervention group having more extra visits (P = 0.156).

Conclusion

It has been examined if the number of severe AEs for melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy could be reduced by involving the patients in the reporting of symptoms. The results do not justify the expansion of the pilot study into a regular phase III study with this particular set-up. However, a significant difference in the number of phone contacts was found as patients in the intervention group called more frequently, indicating that their attention to AEs was increased. Even though the use of an electronic PRO tool could not reduce the number of severe AEs in this melanoma population, a positive impact on other endpoints such as QoL, communication, or treatment-planning, cannot be excluded.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03073031 Registered 8 March 2017, Retrospectively registered.

Patient-Reported Outcomes During Immunotherapy for Metastatic Melanoma: Mixed Methods Study of Patients' and Clinicians' Experiences

Background

The benefits of electronic patient reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaires have been demonstrated in many settings, including in hospitals and patient homes. However, it remains to be investigated how melanoma patients and their treating clinicians experience the electronic self-reporting of side effects and the derived communication.

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to examine patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with an eHealth intervention for weekly monitoring of side effects during treatment with immunotherapy.

Methods

An eHealth intervention based on questions from the PRO-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) library was used and tested in a randomized clinical trial with patients receiving immunotherapy for malignant melanoma and clinicians at a university hospital in Denmark. On a weekly basis, patients reported their symptoms from home during the treatment via a provided tablet. The electronic patient reports were available to clinicians in the outpatient clinic. A mixed methods approach was applied to investigate the patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with the intervention. Data from patient experiences were collected in a short survey, the Patient Feedback Form. Moreover, a subset of the patients participating in the survey was interviewed about their experience. Furthermore, one focus group interview with clinicians was carried out to elucidate their views.

Results

A total of 57 patients completed the Patient Feedback Form, and 14 patients were interviewed. The focus group interview included 5 clinicians. Overall, patients and clinicians were satisfied with the tool. They believed it enhanced patients’ awareness of side effects and increased their feeling of involvement. The patients reported that it was easy to fill out the questionnaire and that it made sense to do so. However, a minority of the patients expressed in the interviews that they did not believe that the health care professionals had seen their reports when they came to the clinic, and that the reporting did not lead to increased contact with the department.

Conclusions

Overall, satisfaction with the eHealth intervention was high among patients and their treating clinicians. The tool was easy to use and contributed to greater symptom awareness and patient involvement. Thus, in terms of patient and clinician satisfaction with the tool, it makes sense to continue using the tool beyond the project period.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03073031; https://tinyurl.com/tjx3gtu