A web-based interactive tool to improve breast cancer patient centredness

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.

How to Train Your Health: Sports as a Resource to Improve Cognitive Abilities in Cancer Patients

From a cognitive-psychological perspective, physical exercise (PE) and sports are an interesting tool for improving people's cognitive abilities. One field of application for such a tool is decision making (DM) support in chronic patients, cancer patients, and survivors in particular. On the one hand, cancer patients and survivors have to continually take important decisions about their own care (e.g., treatment choice; changes in lifestyle), in collaboration with caregivers and health providers; on the other hand, side effects of treatment may be detrimental to cognitive abilities, such as attention, which make the health DM tasks even more demanding, complex, and emotionally disruptive for patients. Since cancer patients have to engage in healthy activities both for improving their own quality of life and for sustaining the effects of medications, clinical advice to engage in sport and PE is becoming more and more widespread within interventions. However, while sports are usually seen as healthy physical activities, their impact on cognitive abilities is mostly overlooked in the literature. The hypothesis of the present work is that sports could be fully exploited in their potential as focused exercises for cognitive ability training, in the field of cognitive training for chronic patients specifically. Indeed, literature shows that different sports (e.g., individual or team-based) influence and possibly augment cognitive abilities such as focused and divided attention, working memory, and DM under time constraints. Moreover, besides providing training for cognitive abilities, the experience of sports may represent an opportunity to explore, train and sharpen DM abilities directly: we identify five ways in which sport experiences may influence DM processes, and provide indications for future research on the topic.

Predicting trajectories of recovery in prostate cancer patients undergone Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP)

OBJECTIVE

To identify trends of patients' urinary and sexual dysfunctions from a clinical and psychological perspective and understand whether sociodemographic and medical predictors could differentiate among patients following different one-year longitudinal trajectories.

METHODS

An Italian sample of 478 prostate cancer patients undergone Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy completed the EPIC-26 survey between July 2015 and July 2016 at the pre-hospitalization (T0), 45 days (T1) and 3 (T2), 6 (T3), 9 (T4), and 12 months (T5) after surgery. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics (age, BMI, diabetes, nerve-sparing procedure) were also collected. Latent Class Growth Analysis was conducted separately for sexual dysfunction and urinary incontinence EPIC-26 subscales. The association between membership in the two longitudinal trajectories of urinary and sexual dysfunctions was assessed by considering Chi-square test and its related contingency table.

RESULTS

People who have a high level of urinary incontinence at T1 are likely to have a worse recovery. Age, BMI and pre-surgical continence may affect the level of incontinence at T1 and the recovery trajectories. Patients with low and moderate sexual problems at T1 can face a moderate linear recovery, while people with high level of impotence immediately after surgery may take a longer period to solve sexual dysfunctions. Age and the pre-surgical sexual condition may impact the recovery. Finally, a great proportion of patients reported both steady problems in sexual function and constant high levels of urinary incontinence over time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights different categories of patients at risk who may be important to know in order to develop personalized medical pathways and predictive models in a value-based healthcare.

Development of an eHealth tool for cancer patients: monitoring psycho-emotional aspects with the Family Resilience (FaRe) Questionnaire

In the last decade, clinicians have started to shift from an individualistic perspective of the patient towards family-centred models of care, due to the increasing evidence from research and clinical practice of the crucial role of significant others in determining the patient's adjustment to cancer disease and management. eHealth tools can be considered a means to compensate the services gap and support outpatient care flows. Within the works of the European H2020 iManageCancer project, a review of the literature in the field of family resilience was conducted, in order to determine how to monitor the patient and his/her family's resilience through an eHealth platform. An analysis of existing family resilience questionnaires suggested that no measure was appropriate for cancer patients and their families. For this reason, a new family resilience questionnaire (named FaRe) was developed to screen the patient's and caregiver's psycho-emotional resources. Composed of 24 items, it is divided into four subscales: Communication and Cohesion, Perceived Family Coping, Religiousness and Spirituality, and Perceived Social Support. Embedded in the iManageCancer eHealth platform, it allows users and clinicians to monitor the patient's and the caregivers' resilience throughout the cancer trajectory.

Telemedicine Use Among Caregivers of Cancer Patients: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The number of published studies and systematic reviews examining different telehealth interventions targeting patients and their effects on patients' well-being and quality of life have grown in recent decades. However, the use of telemedicine tools aimed at the family members and caregivers of adult cancer patients is less defined.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct a systematic review to provide a more complete picture regarding telemedicine tools for informal caregivers (usually family members or close friends) implemented in all phases of cancer care. More specifically, the review aimed to better describe the study samples' characteristics, to analyze measured outcomes and the specific questionnaires used to assess them, and to describe in depth the implemented interventions and their formats. Finally, we examined the role of telehealth, and usability and feasibility trends in supporting patients' caregivers.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature in the following databases: Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO. Inclusion criteria were being written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, describing a telehealth-implemented intervention, and focusing on caregivers of adult cancer patients at any stage of the disease. We selected studies published up to November 2017. We critically appraised included articles using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and graded the quality of evidence by outcome using the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine framework.

RESULTS

We included 24 studies in the final selection. In 21 of the 24 studies, the patient-caregiver dyad was analyzed, and the study population dealt with different types of cancer at different stages. Included studies considered the caregiver's condition from both an individual and a relational point of view. Along with psychosocial variables, some studies monitored engagement and user satisfaction regarding Web-based platforms or telehealth interventions. All studies reported significant improvements in some of the investigated areas, but they often showed small effect sizes. Two types of telehealth intervention formats were used: Web-based platforms and telephone calls. Some of the included studies referred to the same project, but on study samples with different cancer diagnoses or with new versions of previously developed interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported outcomes seem to suggest that we are in an exploratory phase. More detailed and targeted research hypotheses are still needed. Clarifying caregivers' needs related to telehealth tools and better defining outcome measures may yield more significant results.