1
|
Lai-Kwon J, Rutherford C, Jefford M, Gore C, Best S. Using Implementation Science Frameworks to Guide the Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care. JCO Oncol Pract 2024; 20:335-349. [PMID: 38206290 DOI: 10.1200/op.23.00462] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2023] [Revised: 11/02/2023] [Accepted: 11/20/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are an evidence-based means of detecting symptoms earlier and improving patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of successful implementation in routine cancer care. We conducted a qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS Participants were adult patients with cancer, their caregivers, or health care professionals involved in ePRO monitoring or processes. Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted using a semistructured approach informed by the CFIR. Data were analyzed deductively using the CFIR. Barriers were matched to theory-informed implementation strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool. RESULTS Thirty participants were interviewed: 22 females (73%), aged 31-70 years (28, 94%), comprising patients (n = 8), caregivers (n = 2), medical oncologists (n = 4), nurses (n = 4), hospital leaders (n = 6), clinic administrators (n = 2), pharmacists (n = 2), and information technology specialists (n = 2). Barriers pertaining to four CFIR domains were identified and several were novel, including the challenge of adapting ePROs for different anticancer treatments. Facilitators pertaining to all CFIR domains were identified, such as leveraging acceptability of remote care post-COVID-19 to drive implementation. Conducting consensus discussions with stakeholders to tailor ePROs to the local setting, identifying/preparing individual and group-level champions, and assessing readiness for change (including leveraging technological advances and increased confidence in using remote monitoring post-COVID-19) were the most frequently recommended implementation strategies. CONCLUSION The CFIR facilitated identification of known and novel barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care. Implementation strategies summarized in a conceptual framework will be used to codesign an ePRO symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy side effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Lai-Kwon
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Claudia Rutherford
- Cancer Care Research Unit (CCRU), Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Michael Jefford
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Claire Gore
- Department of Psychology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Psychology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Maharaj AD, Roberts N, Jefford M, Ng J, Rutherford C, Koczwara B. The use of patient reported outcome measures in oncology clinical practice across Australia and New Zealand. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2024; 8:1. [PMID: 38165502 PMCID: PMC10761654 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-023-00664-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 11/17/2023] [Indexed: 01/03/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND While there is increasing evidence on the benefits of PROMs in cancer care, the extent of routine collection and use of PROMs in clinical cancer practice across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is unknown. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of PROMs use in routine clinical cancer care in ANZ. METHODS An online survey was designed and disseminated via professional societies and organisations using a snowball sampling approach to clinical and health administration professionals managing cancer care in ANZ. A poster advertising the study was also circulated on professional social media networks via LinkedIn and Twitter inviting health professionals from ANZ to participate if they were using or intending to use PROMs in clinical cancer practice. Responders opted into the survey via the survey link. RESULTS From 132 survey views, 91(response rate, 69%) respondents from 56 clinical practices across ANZ agreed to participate in the survey, and of these 55 (n = 55/91, 60%) respondents reported collecting PROMs within their clinical practice. The majority of the respondents were from the State of New South Wales in Australia (n = 21/55, 38%), hospital (n = 35/55, 64%), and a public setting (n = 46/55, 83%). PROMs were collected in all cancer types (n = 21/36, 58%), in all stages of the disease (n = 31/36, 86%), in an adult population (n = 33/36, 92%), applied in English (n = 33/36, 92%), and used to facilitate communication with other reasons (27/36, 75%). A geospatial map analysis provided insights into the variation in PROMs uptake between the two countries and in certain jurisdictions within Australia. This study also highlights the limited resources for PROMs implementation, and a lack of systematic priority driven approach. CONCLUSION PROM use across Australia and New Zealand seems variable and occurring predominantly in larger metropolitan centres with limited standardisation of approach and implementation. A greater focus on equitable adoption of PROMs in diverse cancer care settings is urgently needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashika D Maharaj
- Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
- Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
| | - Natasha Roberts
- The University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, Australia
- STARS Education and Research Alliance, Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service (STARS), The University of Queensland and Metro North Health, Herston, QLD, Australia
| | - Michael Jefford
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jerome Ng
- Te Whatu Ora Counties Manukau, Auckland, New Zealand
- School of Pharmacy, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Claudia Rutherford
- Cancer Care Research Unit, Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Bogda Koczwara
- Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lam AB, Moore V, Nipp RD. Care Delivery Interventions for Individuals with Cancer: A Literature Review and Focus on Gastrointestinal Malignancies. Healthcare (Basel) 2023; 12:30. [PMID: 38200936 PMCID: PMC10779432 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12010030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2023] [Revised: 12/05/2023] [Accepted: 12/21/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gastrointestinal malignancies represent a particularly challenging condition, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach to management in order to meet the unique needs of these individuals and their caregivers. PURPOSE In this literature review, we sought to describe care delivery interventions that strive to improve the quality of life and care for patients with a focus on gastrointestinal malignancies. CONCLUSION We highlight patient-centered care delivery interventions, including patient-reported outcomes, hospital-at-home interventions, and other models of care for individuals with cancer. By demonstrating the relevance and utility of these different care models for patients with gastrointestinal malignancies, we hope to highlight the importance of developing and testing new interventions to address the unique needs of this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anh B. Lam
- Department of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA
| | - Vanessa Moore
- College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73117, USA;
| | - Ryan D. Nipp
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
O'Sullivan CC, Cracchiolo JR, Tevaarwerk AJ. Lessons Learned and Practice Pearls: Optimal Integration of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Medical Oncology Clinic. JCO Oncol Pract 2023; 19:951-954. [PMID: 37733976 DOI: 10.1200/op.23.00415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2023] [Accepted: 07/20/2023] [Indexed: 09/23/2023] Open
Abstract
This editorial reviews the many opportunities and obstacles associated with ePRO integration in oncology
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jennifer R Cracchiolo
- Head and Neck Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Koczwara B, Knowles R, Beatty L, Shepherd HL, Shaw JM, Dhillon HM, Karnon J, Ullah S, Butow P. Implementing a web-based system of screening for symptoms and needs using patient-reported outcomes in people with cancer. Support Care Cancer 2023; 31:69. [PMID: 36542190 PMCID: PMC9768388 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07547-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2022] [Accepted: 12/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the implementation of a web-based system of screening for symptoms and needs in people with diverse cancers in a general hospital in Australia. METHODS This was a prospective, single-arm, pragmatic intervention study. After local adaptation of an online portal and training, cancer nurses were asked to register patients to screen via the portal in clinic or at home. Symptoms were scored according to severity, and scores above cut-off were reported to nurses for assessment and management, according to best practice. RESULTS Fifteen nurses working across diverse tumour types agreed to approach patients for screening. Of these, 7 nurses approached 68 patients, with 5 approaching more than 1 during the 7-month study period. Forty-seven (69%) patients completed screening, and 22 rescreened at least once. At first screening, 33 (70%) patients reported at least one symptom, most commonly tiredness (n = 27; 57%), reduced wellbeing (n = 24; 51%) and drowsiness (n = 17; 36%). Of the total 75 screens undertaken during the study, 56 (75%) identified at least one symptom, and 22 (29%) identified at least one severe symptom. All patients with a positive first screen were followed up by a nurse assessment and intervention-mostly reassurance (n = 19, 59%) or referral to another health professional (n = 11, 34%). CONCLUSION Screening for symptoms and needs using a web-based portal identified many unmet needs, but the uptake of this intervention by nurses and patients was lower than expected.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bogda Koczwara
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
| | - Reegan Knowles
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Lisa Beatty
- Flinders University Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing | College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Heather L Shepherd
- Psycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Joanne M Shaw
- Psycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Haryana M Dhillon
- Psycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-Based Decision-Making, School of Psychology Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jonathan Karnon
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Shahid Ullah
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Phyllis Butow
- Psycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-Based Decision-Making, School of Psychology Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
van den Hurk CJG, Mols F, Eicher M, Chan RJ, Becker A, Geleijnse G, Walraven I, Coolbrandt A, Lustberg M, Velikova G, Charalambous A, Koczwara B, Howell D, Basch EM, van de Poll-Franse LV. A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:4370-4385. [PMID: 35735458 PMCID: PMC9222072 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29060349] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2022] [Revised: 05/11/2022] [Accepted: 05/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) applications promise great added value for improving symptom management and health-related quality of life. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the collection and use of ePROs for cancer survivorship care, with an emphasis on ePRO-symptom monitoring. It offers many different perspectives from research settings, while current implementation in routine care is ongoing. ePRO collection optimizes survivorship care by providing insight into the patients' well-being and prioritizing their unmet needs during the whole trajectory from diagnosis to end-of-life. ePRO-symptom monitoring can contribute to timely health risk detection and subsequently allow earlier intervention. Detection is optimized by automatically generated alerts that vary from simple to complex and multilayered. Using ePRO-symptoms during in-hospital consultation enhances the patients' conversation with the health care provider before making informed decisions about treatments, other interventions, or self-management. ePRO(-symptoms) entail specific implementation issues and complementary ethics considerations. The latter is due to privacy concerns, digital divide, and scarcity of adequately representative data for particular groups of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Corina J. G. van den Hurk
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands; (F.M.); (G.G.); (L.V.v.d.P.-F.)
- Correspondence:
| | - Floortje Mols
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands; (F.M.); (G.G.); (L.V.v.d.P.-F.)
- CoRPS—Center of Research on Psychological Disorders and Somatic Diseases, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Manuela Eicher
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Health Care (IUFRS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne and Lausanne University Hospital, CH-1010 Lausanne, Switzerland;
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital, CH-1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Raymond J. Chan
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia;
| | - Annemarie Becker
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Gijs Geleijnse
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands; (F.M.); (G.G.); (L.V.v.d.P.-F.)
| | - Iris Walraven
- Radboudumc, Department for Health Evidence, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
| | - Annemarie Coolbrandt
- Department of Oncology Nursing, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Center for Nursing and Midwifery, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Maryam Lustberg
- Breast Medical Oncology, Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA;
- Breast Center at Smilow Cancer Hospital, New Haven, CT 06519, USA
| | - Galina Velikova
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James’s, University of Leeds and Leeds Cancer Centre, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK;
| | - Andreas Charalambous
- Nursing Department, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol 3036, Cyprus;
- Department of Nursing Science, University of Turku, 00074 CGI Turku, Finland
| | - Bogda Koczwara
- Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia;
| | - Doris Howell
- Princess Margaret Cancer Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada;
| | - Ethan M. Basch
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA;
| | - Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands; (F.M.); (G.G.); (L.V.v.d.P.-F.)
- CoRPS—Center of Research on Psychological Disorders and Somatic Diseases, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands
- Department of Psychosocial Research, Division of Psychosocial Research & Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bamgboje-Ayodele A, Arnold B, Durcinoska I, Avery S, Vinod S, Rincones O, Thomas T, Descallar J, Smith B, Delaney GP, Girgis A. Implementing patient-reported outcomes into routine care: an audit of cancer patients from two local health districts in New South Wales to understand their capabilities and preferences. AUST HEALTH REV 2022; 46:331-337. [PMID: 35545809 DOI: 10.1071/ah21270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2021] [Accepted: 03/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
ObjectiveIt has been established that the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care provides significant benefits to patients, providers and health services. However, there are patient-level barriers that must be identified and addressed for the successful implementation of PROMs. This study aimed to understand the capabilities and preferences of our cancer patient population prior to implementation of electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs). Specifically, we conducted a clinic audit to determine the proportion of patients in clinics with access to out-of-clinic internet; those preferring to complete PROMs on paper or via an electronic device; those capable of completing PROMs in English; and those anticipating requiring assistance to complete PROMs.MethodsPatients receiving cancer treatment or follow-up care at two Local Health Districts (LHDs) in New South Wales, Australia, completed a questionnaire (audit form) with items about internet and mobile access, communication preferences and assistance needed to complete PROMs. Participant demographic and treatment information were extracted from their electronic medical records.ResultsAcross both LHDs, 637 of 1668 participants (38%) completed the audit forms. Mean participant age was 65 years (range = 23-98), 53% were female, and 92% were outpatients. Patients in the two LHDs differed in their levels of internet and email access, and ability to complete PROMs independently in English, suggesting that some LHD-specific tailoring of implementation strategies is necessary to optimise ePROMs uptake.ConclusionThis study highlights the importance of understanding the specific local contexts and patient populations, including potential technology and language barriers, which can influence patient ability to complete ePROMs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adeola Bamgboje-Ayodele
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia; and South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia; and Present address: Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia
| | - Belinda Arnold
- Wollongong Hospital, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Wollongong, NSW 2500, Australia
| | - Ivana Durcinoska
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia
| | - Sandra Avery
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia; and South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia; and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia
| | - Shalini Vinod
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia; and South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia; and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia
| | - Orlando Rincones
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia
| | - Tien Thomas
- Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia
| | - Joseph Descallar
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia; and South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia
| | - Ben Smith
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia; and South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia
| | - Geoff P Delaney
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia; and South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia; and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia
| | - Afaf Girgis
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia; and South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Mazariego C, Jefford M, Chan RJ, Roberts N, Millar L, Anazodo A, Hayes S, Brown B, Saunders C, Webber K, Vardy J, Girgis A, Koczwara B. Priority recommendations for the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical cancer care: a Delphi study. J Cancer Surviv 2022; 16:33-43. [PMID: 35107792 PMCID: PMC8881271 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-021-01135-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2021] [Accepted: 11/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Mazariego
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, 153 Dowling street, Woolloomooloo, NSW, 2011, Australia.
| | - M Jefford
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - R J Chan
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - N Roberts
- Metro North Health Service, Herston, QLD, Australia.,University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, QLD, Australia
| | - L Millar
- Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - A Anazodo
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Sydney, Australia.,Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney, Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick, Sydney, Australia.,Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - S Hayes
- Consumer representative, Patients First: The Continuous Improvement in Care-Cancer Project, Perth, Australia
| | - B Brown
- Wellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Australia
| | - C Saunders
- Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - K Webber
- School of Medical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Vic, Australia.,Oncology Department, Monash Health, Clayton, Vic, Australia
| | - J Vardy
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.,Concord Cancer Centre, Concord Hospital, Concord, NSW, Australia
| | - A Girgis
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
| | - B Koczwara
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia.,Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Bradford N, Condon P, Pitt E, Tyack Z, Alexander K. Optimising symptom management in children with cancer using a novel mobile phone application: protocol for a controlled hybrid effectiveness implementation trial (RESPONSE). BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21:942. [PMID: 34503489 PMCID: PMC8427146 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06943-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2021] [Accepted: 08/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intense and aggressive treatment regimens for most children's cancer have achieved vast improvements in survival but are also responsible for both a high number and burden of symptoms. The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) demonstrates a range of benefits for improved symptom management in adults with cancer. There are, however, multiple barriers to integrating PROMs into routine care in children and adolescents with cancer. This study aims to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of electronic PROMs to generate stratified alerts, symptom management recommendations and graphical summaries (the RESPONSE system) to improve health outcomes and (2) the implementation of the RESPONSE system by assessing feasibility, acceptability, satisfaction, and sustainability. METHODS A pragmatic hybrid II effectiveness-implementation controlled trial, using mixed methods, will be undertaken, advancing both knowledge of the effectiveness of the intervention and implementation factors. One-hundred and sixty children with cancer receiving active treatment will be recruited 1:1 to a non-randomised study involving two groups with an equal number of participants in each group. The intervention group (n = 80) will be prospectively recruited to receive the RESPONSE system intervention over eight weeks, versus the historical matched control group (n = 80) who will complete the ePROMs without access to the RESPONSE system. The primary outcome of the effectiveness trial is change between groups in total symptom burden. Secondary outcomes include child health-related quality-of-life and implementation outcomes. Trial data will be analysed using linear mixed-effects models. Formative implementation evaluation is informed by CFIR and ERIC frameworks and implementation outcomes will be mapped to the RE-AIM framework and include interviews, field notes, as well as administrative data to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, satisfaction and sustainability. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ACTRN12621001084875 . Retrospectively Registered 16 August 2021.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Bradford
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Brisbane, Australia.
- Centre for Children's Health Research, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Queensland Children's Hospital, 62 Graham St, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Brisbane, Australia.
- Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Brisbane, Australia.
| | - Paula Condon
- Centre for Children's Health Research, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Queensland Children's Hospital, 62 Graham St, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Erin Pitt
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Brisbane, Australia
- Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Zephanie Tyack
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Kimberly Alexander
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Brisbane, Australia
- Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Brisbane, Australia
| |
Collapse
|