A catalyst for transforming health systems and person-centred care: Canadian national position statement on patient-reported outcomes

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs): protocol for an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) are evidence-based, standardized questionnaires that can be used to capture patients' perspectives of their health and health care. While substantial investments have been made in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs, their use remains fragmented and limited in many settings. Analysis of multi-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs and PREMs has been hampered by the lack of use of state-of-the-art implementation science frameworks. This umbrella review aims to consolidate available evidence from existing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews covering factors that influence the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings.

METHODS

An umbrella review of systematic and scoping reviews will be conducted following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods reviews of studies focusing on the implementation of PROMs and/or PREMs in all healthcare settings will be considered for inclusion. Eight bibliographical databases will be searched. All review steps will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Included reviews will be appraised and data will be extracted in four steps: (1) assessing the methodological quality of reviews using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist; (2) extracting data from included reviews; (3) theory-based coding of barriers and enablers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0; and (4) identifying the barriers and enablers best supported by reviews using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Findings will be presented in diagrammatic and tabular forms in a manner that aligns with the objective and scope of this umbrella review, along with a narrative summary.

DISCUSSION

This umbrella review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews will inform policymakers, researchers, managers, and clinicians regarding which factors hamper or enable the adoption and sustained use of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings, and the level of confidence in the evidence supporting these factors. Findings will orient the selection and adaptation of implementation strategies tailored to the factors identified.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023421845.

Unfolding biographies-a participatory narrative study on how older adults with multiple sclerosis make sense of and manage their everyday lives

BACKGROUND

Today, public health research on later life, including the literature on aging with multiple sclerosis, is often centered on aging as a biological phenomenon. By applying a participatory narrative approach, this study conveys how studying biographical aging provides important insights into the elements of aging that people find relevant and meaningful. Based on narratives told by older adults living with multiple sclerosis, we explore how sensemaking unfolds and shapes the management of later life with a chronic and progressive disease.

METHODS

Twenty-four older adults (aged 65 years or older) living with multiple sclerosis in Denmark were engaged in taking photographs of their everyday lives and unfold the stories framed in their photographs in subsequent narrative interviews. Interview data were analyzed using a thematic narrative analysis. Aligned with the narrative approach, the findings of the analysis are presented using five cases chosen because they provide insight into the general patterns and themes identified across the narratives of the 24 participants.

RESULTS

Based on their photographs, the participants narrated stories centered around what they perceived as meaningful activities and social identity when aging with a progressive disease. Three themes emerged from the analysis in relation to how participants made sense of and managed aging with multiple sclerosis: 1) a life woven by non-detachable life experiences, 2) envisioning the future and 3) challenging life circumstances.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the study highlight that aging with multiple sclerosis is not only a biological phenomenon but also something nested in people's biographies. How people make sense of and manage their everyday lives is shaped by strategies from all parts of their lives-past, present and future. This understanding of later life with multiple sclerosis may enhance the care offered to older adults living with multiple sclerosis if greater emphasis is placed on the exploration of their narratives and the things they find meaningful.

Population-Based Applications and Analytics Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

The intersection of big data and artificial intelligence (AI) has resulted in advances in numerous areas, including machine learning, computer vision, and natural language processing. Although there are many potentially transformative applications of AI in health care, including precision medicine, this industry has been slow to adopt these technologies. At the same time, the operations of health care have historically been system-directed and physician-directed rather than patient-centered. The application of AI to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which provide insight into patient-centered health outcomes, could steer research and healthcare delivery toward decisions that optimize outcomes important to patients. Historically, PROMs have only been collected within research registries. However, the increasing availability of PROMs within electronic health records has led to their inclusion in big data ecosystems, where they can inform or be informed by other data elements. The use of big data to analyze PROMs can help establish norms, evaluate data distribution, and determine proportions of patients achieving change or threshold standards. This information can be used for benchmarking, risk adjustment, predictive modeling, and ultimately improving the health of individuals and populations.

Patient-reported outcomes validated in phase 3 clinical trials: a targeted literature review

BACKGROUND

Regulatory guidance advises validation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments prior to use in pivotal clinical studies, which may then be used to generate critical patient-centered evidence and support labelling claims. This targeted literature review aimed to determine if PRO instruments psychometrically validated in a phase 3 trial setting could support label claims from the same phase 3 study (i.e. PRO data were generated as an endpoint).

METHODS

A targeted search of published studies (1 January 2006-3 June 2021) using the MEDLINE database identified PRO instruments validated during phase 3 trials. The search included instrument terms (e.g. patient-reported outcome measures, questionnaire, survey) and validation terms (e.g. reproducibility, minimal important difference), without filtering for therapeutic indications. Results were limited to phase 3 clinical trials or validation studies. The PROLABELS database was used to identify PROs validated in phase 3 trials and accepted in labelling claims.

RESULTS

Of 355 references identified, 68 studies with PRO psychometric validation in phase 3 studies were selected, covering 78 instruments. Of these, 20 were novel PRO instruments and 58 were existing instruments being validated for a new therapeutic indication/population. The psychometric properties most frequently validated were internal consistency reliability, known-group validity, responsiveness, minimal important difference, and concurrent validity. Five novel instruments obtained ten labelling claims for seven drugs/products.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that quantitative validation of novel PRO instruments, and existing PROs for new indications, can occur within the context of phase 3 trials, and these PROs can also support label claims.

Patient reported outcomes in oncology: changing perspectives-a systematic review

In public health context, oncology is associated with severe negative impact on patients and on their relatives’ quality of life. Over the last decades, survival has remained at 50% worldwide for some tumor locations. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) assessment and, the corresponding use in clinical practice, help establishing patient individualized profiling involving caregivers. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine critical success factors for PROs assessment in daily clinical oncology practice. Additionally, we investigated how PROs collection can change oncology perspectives for patients and caregivers. According to PRISMA guidelines, 83 studies were included in this systematic review, whether related with implementation in daily clinical practice or associated with its use in oncology. PROs assessment gathers multi-professional teams, biomedical and clinical expertise, patients, families and caregivers. Institutional involvement, first line for caregiver’s adherence, team continuous formation, encompassing training and support, design of clear workflows, continuous monitoring, and data analysis are crucial for implementation. PROs measures are decisive in oncology. Several items were improved, including caregiver–patient–physician communication, patient risk groups identification, unmet problems and needs detection, disease course and treatment tracking, prognostic markers, cost-effectiveness measurement and comfort/support provision for both patients and caregivers. Routine assessment and implementation of PROs in clinical practice are a major challenge and a paradigm transformation for future.

To share or not to share: communication of caregiver-reported outcomes when a patient has colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The importance of patient-centered measurement in cancer care has led to recognition of the potential for caregiver-reported outcomes to improve caregiver, patient and healthcare system outcomes. Yet, there is limited evidence to inform caregiver-reported outcome implementation. Our purpose was to generate evidence to inform the meaningful and constructive integration of caregiver-reported outcomes into cancer care to benefit caregivers, including exploration of the question of the extent to which these assessments should be shared with patients. We focused on caregivers of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) because CRC is common, and associated caregiving can be complex.

RESULTS

From our Interpretive Description analysis of qualitative interview data from 78 participants (25 caregivers, 37 patients, and 16 healthcare providers [HCPs]), we identified contrasting perspectives about the sharing of caregiver-reported outcome assessments with patients with CRC. Those who preferred open communication with both the patient and caregiver present considered this essential for supporting the caregiver. The participants who preferred private communication without the patient, cited concern about caregiver- and patient-burden and guilt. Recognizing these perspectives, HCPs described strategies used to navigate sensitivities inherent in preferences for open versus private communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of caregiver-reported outcomes into cancer care will require careful consideration of caregiver and patient preferences regarding the communication of caregiver assessments to prevent additional burden.

Priority recommendations for the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical cancer care: a Delphi study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop priority recommendations for the service level implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical cancer care.

Methods

Development of draft guidance statements was informed by a literature review, the Knowledge to Action (KTA) implementation framework, and discussion with PRO experts and cancer survivors. A two-round modified Delphi survey with key stakeholders including cancer survivors, clinical and research experts, and Information Technology specialists was undertaken. Round 1 rated the importance of the statements and round 2 ranked statements in order of priority.

Results

Round 1 was completed by 70 participants with round 2 completed by 45 participants. Forty-seven statements were rated in round 2. In round 1, the highest agreement items (>90% agreement) included those that focused on the formation of strong stakeholder partnerships, ensuring ongoing communication within these partnerships, and the use of PROs for improvement and guidance in clinical care. Items ranked as the highest priorities in round 2 included assessment of current staff capabilities and service requirements, mapping of workflows and processes to enable collection, and using collected PROs to guide improved health outcomes.

Conclusions

This stakeholder consultation process has identified key priorities in PRO implementation into clinical cancer care that include clinical relevance, stakeholder engagement, communication, and integration within the existing processes and capabilities.

Implication for Cancer Survivors

Routine adoption of PRO collection by clinical cancer services requires multiple implementation steps; of highest priority is strong engagement and communication with key stakeholders including cancer survivors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01135-2.

The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners

Background

There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners’ experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care.

Methods

Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings.

Results

In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia–Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as “high frequency users” who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier.

Conclusions

Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7.

Launching an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Initiative in Real-Time Clinical Practice

Patient-reported outcomes play an essential role in improving care across the cancer continuum. This paper reports on the experience of a tertiary care center to standardize the use, collection, and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in 10 disease-specific survivorship clinics. To minimize the burden of patients to complete surveys, an institutional committee with oversight on all patient surveys required an application be reviewed and approved before their distribution in a clinic. To begin collecting PROs, each clinic submitted an application tailored to its clinical operations, staffing, and scheduling characteristics. The dates for the submission of each application were staggered over a 2-year period, which contributed to a lack of uniformity in the project (ie, approval dates, start dates, collection and reporting of results). The delays were primarily due to the time and resources required to build the electronic version of the PRO survey into the institutional electronic medical record. To date, 6 of 10 survivorship clinics submitted applications, 5 were approved, and 4 launched the electronic MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (eMDASI) through the patient portal. Metrics collected between January 2019 and December 2020 for the thyroid, bone marrow transplant, genitourinary, and head and neck clinics indicated the numbers of eMDASIs sent to patients varied by clinic, with the lowest from the bone marrow transplant survivorship clinic (6) and the highest (746) in the thyroid Clinic. The total number of eMDASIs returned by the patients ranged from 2 (bone marrow transplant) to 429 (thyroid). Overall, patients' return rates of the eMDASI ranged from 33.3% to 57.7%. Several strategies were implemented to increase the delivery, submission, and completion of eMDASIs. Our findings indicate the integration and implementation of PROs in survivorship clinics are achievable. Further work is needed to enhance the ePROs web-based process to adequately compare PROs across diverse cohorts of cancer survivors .

Quality of life in a real-world study of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with trifluridine/tipiracil

Background

Quality of life (qol) is important for oncology patients, especially for those with late-stage disease. The present study was initiated to address the lack of published prospective data about the qol benefits of trifluridine/tipiracil (ftd/tpi) compared with best supportive care (bsc) in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc).

Methods

This prospective, cross-sectional, non-interventional study used multidimensional validated scales to evaluate patient-reported qol in two study cohorts of patients and also to measure differences in mcrc-related symptoms and pain in a real-world clinical setting.

Results

Our findings demonstrate that patients with refractory mcrc report better overall qol when treated with ftd/tpi than with bsc alone. In that population, statistically significant differences in mean qol measures favoured ftd/tpi over bsc for physical symptom distress, psychological distress, activity impairment, overall valuation of life, and symptomatology. The overall better qol for patients receiving ftd/tpi implies that treatment was well tolerated and was associated with a lower symptom burden. No significant differences for pain were observed between the groups.

Conclusions

This study suggests that ftd/tpi is a well-tolerated option for the treatment of patients with refractory mcrc, showcasing the value of capturing real-world qol data in routine clinical practice.