Skip to main content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 3/2016

01-03-2016 | Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only)

Evaluation of point-of-care PRO assessment in clinic settings: integration, parallel-forms reliability, and patient acceptability of electronic QOL measures during clinic visits

Auteurs: Pranav Sharma, Rodney L. Dunn, John T. Wei, James E. Montie, Scott M. Gilbert

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2016

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, has become an important component of healthcare that measures the impact of disease and medical treatment on patient health. Collecting PROs during point-of-care assessments and integrating them into the clinical setting, however, remains challenging. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the reliability, usability, and acceptability of point-of-care electronic PRO assessments implemented in a prostate cancer clinic.

Methods

Fifty subjects completed paper–pencil and computerized formats of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), a validated, condition-specific QOL instrument, at separate times before treatment. Parallel-forms reliability was evaluated by comparing mean scores, variations in response distribution, and correlations between administration formats. Correlation coefficients of at least 0.70 were used for reliability testing. Differences between administration forms, indicating potential bias, were compared using the signed-rank test. A 6-item acceptability scale was also used to evaluate patient acceptability and satisfaction with the electronic format.

Results

Mean scores and standard deviations were similar between the paper–pencil and electronic forms across all EPIC instrument domains, and no assessment bias was found. Each EPIC domain demonstrated a high reliability between administration formats (correlation coefficients: 0.70–0.98). The majority (>90 %) of respondents found that the computerized QOL format was user friendly and simple to use.

Conclusions

Point-of-care computerized QOL assessments were reliable and acceptable to patients in this study, supporting the feasibility of PRO integration at the point-of-care in clinical settings.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Santana, M. J., Haverman, L., Absolom, K., Takeuchi, E., Feeny, D., Grootenhuis, M., & Velikova, G. (2015). Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 24(7), 1707–1718. CrossRefPubMed Santana, M. J., Haverman, L., Absolom, K., Takeuchi, E., Feeny, D., Grootenhuis, M., & Velikova, G. (2015). Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 24(7), 1707–1718. CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Detmar, S. B., & Aaronson, N. K. (1998). Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: A feasibility study. European Journal of Cancer, 34(8), 1181–1186. CrossRefPubMed Detmar, S. B., & Aaronson, N. K. (1998). Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: A feasibility study. European Journal of Cancer, 34(8), 1181–1186. CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724. CrossRefPubMed Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724. CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Jensen, R. E., Snyder, C. F., Abernethy, A. P., Basch, E., Potosky, A. L., Roberts, A. C., et al. (2014). Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. Journal of Oncology Practice, 10(4), e215–e222. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Jensen, R. E., Snyder, C. F., Abernethy, A. P., Basch, E., Potosky, A. L., Roberts, A. C., et al. (2014). Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. Journal of Oncology Practice, 10(4), e215–e222. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Wu, A. W., Kharrazi, H., Boulware, L. E., & Snyder, C. F. (2013). Measure once, cut twice—Adding patient-reported outcome measures to the electronic health record for comparative effectiveness research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8 Suppl), S12–S20. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Wu, A. W., Kharrazi, H., Boulware, L. E., & Snyder, C. F. (2013). Measure once, cut twice—Adding patient-reported outcome measures to the electronic health record for comparative effectiveness research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8 Suppl), S12–S20. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Deyo, R. A., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Medical Care, 27(3 Suppl), S254–S268. CrossRefPubMed Deyo, R. A., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Medical Care, 27(3 Suppl), S254–S268. CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Hjollund, N. H., Larsen, L. P., Biering, K., Johnsen, S. P., Riiskjaer, E., & Schougaard, L. M. (2014). Use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures at group and patient levels: Experiences from the generic integrated PRO system, WestChronic. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 3(1), e5. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Hjollund, N. H., Larsen, L. P., Biering, K., Johnsen, S. P., Riiskjaer, E., & Schougaard, L. M. (2014). Use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures at group and patient levels: Experiences from the generic integrated PRO system, WestChronic. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 3(1), e5. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333. CrossRefPubMed Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333. CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Velikova, G. (2004). Use of electronic quality of life applications in cancer research and clinical practice. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 4(4), 403–411. CrossRefPubMed Velikova, G. (2004). Use of electronic quality of life applications in cancer research and clinical practice. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 4(4), 403–411. CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Velikova, G., Brown, J. M., Smith, A. B., & Selby, P. J. (2002). Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 86(1), 51–59. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Velikova, G., Brown, J. M., Smith, A. B., & Selby, P. J. (2002). Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 86(1), 51–59. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Davis, K. M., Kelly, S. P., Luta, G., Tomko, C., Miller, A. B., & Taylor, K. L. (2014). The association of long-term treatment-related side effects with cancer-specific and general quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology, 84(2), 300–306. CrossRefPubMed Davis, K. M., Kelly, S. P., Luta, G., Tomko, C., Miller, A. B., & Taylor, K. L. (2014). The association of long-term treatment-related side effects with cancer-specific and general quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology, 84(2), 300–306. CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Hamoen, E. H., De Rooij, M., Witjes, J. A., Barentsz, J. O., & Rovers, M. M. (2015). Measuring health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: A systematic review of the most used questionnaires and their validity. Urologic Oncology, 33(2), 69-e19–69-e28. CrossRef Hamoen, E. H., De Rooij, M., Witjes, J. A., Barentsz, J. O., & Rovers, M. M. (2015). Measuring health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: A systematic review of the most used questionnaires and their validity. Urologic Oncology, 33(2), 69-e19–69-e28. CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Montague, D. K., Barada, J. H., Belker, A. M., Levine, L. A., Nadig, P. W., Roehrborn, C. G., et al. (1996). Clinical guidelines panel on erectile dysfunction: Summary report on the treatment of organic erectile dysfunction. The American Urological Association. The Journal of Urology, 156(6), 2007–2011. CrossRefPubMed Montague, D. K., Barada, J. H., Belker, A. M., Levine, L. A., Nadig, P. W., Roehrborn, C. G., et al. (1996). Clinical guidelines panel on erectile dysfunction: Summary report on the treatment of organic erectile dysfunction. The American Urological Association. The Journal of Urology, 156(6), 2007–2011. CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Rosen, R. C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I. H., Kirkpatrick, J., & Mishra, A. (1997). The international index of erectile function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49(6), 822–830. CrossRefPubMed Rosen, R. C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I. H., Kirkpatrick, J., & Mishra, A. (1997). The international index of erectile function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49(6), 822–830. CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Litwin, M. S., Hays, R. D., Fink, A., Ganz, P. A., Leake, B., & Brook, R. H. (1998). The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: Development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure. Medical Care, 36(7), 1002–1012. CrossRefPubMed Litwin, M. S., Hays, R. D., Fink, A., Ganz, P. A., Leake, B., & Brook, R. H. (1998). The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: Development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure. Medical Care, 36(7), 1002–1012. CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Wei, J. T., Dunn, R. L., Litwin, M. S., Sandler, H. M., & Sanda, M. G. (2000). Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology, 56(6), 899–905. CrossRefPubMed Wei, J. T., Dunn, R. L., Litwin, M. S., Sandler, H. M., & Sanda, M. G. (2000). Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology, 56(6), 899–905. CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Gilbert, S. M., Dunn, R. L., Wittmann, D., Montgomery, J. S., Hollingsworth, J. M., Miller, D. C., et al. (2015). Quality of life and satisfaction among prostate cancer patients followed in a dedicated survivorship clinic. Cancer, 121(9), 1484–1491. CrossRefPubMed Gilbert, S. M., Dunn, R. L., Wittmann, D., Montgomery, J. S., Hollingsworth, J. M., Miller, D. C., et al. (2015). Quality of life and satisfaction among prostate cancer patients followed in a dedicated survivorship clinic. Cancer, 121(9), 1484–1491. CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Chang, P., Szymanski, K. M., Dunn, R. L., Chipman, J. J., Litwin, M. S., Nguyen, P. L., et al. (2011). Expanded prostate cancer index composite for clinical practice: Development and validation of a practical health related quality of life instrument for use in the routine clinical care of patients with prostate cancer. Journal of Urology, 186(3), 865–872. CrossRefPubMed Chang, P., Szymanski, K. M., Dunn, R. L., Chipman, J. J., Litwin, M. S., Nguyen, P. L., et al. (2011). Expanded prostate cancer index composite for clinical practice: Development and validation of a practical health related quality of life instrument for use in the routine clinical care of patients with prostate cancer. Journal of Urology, 186(3), 865–872. CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 7(1), 57–78. CrossRef Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 7(1), 57–78. CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Blum, D., Raj, S. X., Oberholzer, R., Riphagen, II, Strasser, F., Kaasa, S., & Euro Impact, E. I. M. P. C. R. T. (2014). Computer-based clinical decision support systems and patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. doi: 10.​1007/​s40271-014-0100-1. Blum, D., Raj, S. X., Oberholzer, R., Riphagen, II, Strasser, F., Kaasa, S., & Euro Impact, E. I. M. P. C. R. T. (2014). Computer-based clinical decision support systems and patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. doi: 10.​1007/​s40271-014-0100-1.
22.
go back to reference Tariman, J. D., Berry, D. L., Halpenny, B., Wolpin, S., & Schepp, K. (2011). Validation and testing of the acceptability E-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care. Applied Nursing Research, 24(1), 53–58. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Tariman, J. D., Berry, D. L., Halpenny, B., Wolpin, S., & Schepp, K. (2011). Validation and testing of the acceptability E-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care. Applied Nursing Research, 24(1), 53–58. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Mohler, J., Bahnson, R. R., Boston, B., Busby, J. E., D’Amico, A., Eastham, J. A., et al. (2010). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Prostate cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 8(2), 162–200. PubMed Mohler, J., Bahnson, R. R., Boston, B., Busby, J. E., D’Amico, A., Eastham, J. A., et al. (2010). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Prostate cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 8(2), 162–200. PubMed
24.
go back to reference Basch, E., & Abernethy, A. P. (2011). Supporting clinical practice decisions with real-time patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(8), 954–956. CrossRefPubMed Basch, E., & Abernethy, A. P. (2011). Supporting clinical practice decisions with real-time patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(8), 954–956. CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Efficace, F., Jacobs, M., Pusic, A., Greimel, E., Piciocchi, A., Kieffer, J. M., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of gynaecological cancers: Investigating methodological quality and impact on clinical decision-making. European Journal of Cancer, 50(11), 1925–1941. CrossRefPubMed Efficace, F., Jacobs, M., Pusic, A., Greimel, E., Piciocchi, A., Kieffer, J. M., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of gynaecological cancers: Investigating methodological quality and impact on clinical decision-making. European Journal of Cancer, 50(11), 1925–1941. CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Basch, E., Artz, D., Dulko, D., Scher, K., Sabbatini, P., Hensley, M., et al. (2005). Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(15), 3552–3561. CrossRefPubMed Basch, E., Artz, D., Dulko, D., Scher, K., Sabbatini, P., Hensley, M., et al. (2005). Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(15), 3552–3561. CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., Forman, D., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(3), 998–1007. PubMed Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., Forman, D., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(3), 998–1007. PubMed
28.
go back to reference Rutherford, C., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rice, H., Costa, D., & King, M. (2014). Mode of administration of patient-reported outcomes (pro) measures: A systematic review. In Paper presented at the Asia– Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology. Rutherford, C., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rice, H., Costa, D., & King, M. (2014). Mode of administration of patient-reported outcomes (pro) measures: A systematic review. In Paper presented at the AsiaPacific Journal of Clinical Oncology.
29.
go back to reference Vickers, A. J., Savage, C. J., Shouery, M., Eastham, J. A., Scardino, P. T., & Basch, E. M. (2010). Validation study of a web-based assessment of functional recovery after radical prostatectomy. Health Quality Life Outcomes, 8, 82. Vickers, A. J., Savage, C. J., Shouery, M., Eastham, J. A., Scardino, P. T., & Basch, E. M. (2010). Validation study of a web-based assessment of functional recovery after radical prostatectomy. Health Quality Life Outcomes, 8, 82.
30.
go back to reference Abernethy, A. P., Herndon, J. E, 2nd, Wheeler, J. L., Day, J. M., Hood, L., Patwardhan, M., et al. (2009). Feasibility and acceptability to patients of a longitudinal system for evaluating cancer-related symptoms and quality of life: Pilot study of an e/Tablet data-collection system in academic oncology. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 37(6), 1027–1038. CrossRefPubMed Abernethy, A. P., Herndon, J. E, 2nd, Wheeler, J. L., Day, J. M., Hood, L., Patwardhan, M., et al. (2009). Feasibility and acceptability to patients of a longitudinal system for evaluating cancer-related symptoms and quality of life: Pilot study of an e/Tablet data-collection system in academic oncology. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 37(6), 1027–1038. CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference McCann, L., Maguire, R., Miller, M., & Kearney, N. (2009). Patients’ perceptions and experiences of using a mobile phone-based advanced symptom management system (ASyMS) to monitor and manage chemotherapy related toxicity. European Journal of Cancer Care, 18(2), 156–164. CrossRefPubMed McCann, L., Maguire, R., Miller, M., & Kearney, N. (2009). Patients’ perceptions and experiences of using a mobile phone-based advanced symptom management system (ASyMS) to monitor and manage chemotherapy related toxicity. European Journal of Cancer Care, 18(2), 156–164. CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Litwin, M. S., & McGuigan, K. A. (1999). Accuracy of recall in health-related quality-of-life assessment among men treated for prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(9), 2882–2888. PubMed Litwin, M. S., & McGuigan, K. A. (1999). Accuracy of recall in health-related quality-of-life assessment among men treated for prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(9), 2882–2888. PubMed
33.
go back to reference Judson, T. J., Bennett, A. V., Rogak, L. J., Sit, L., Barz, A., Kris, M. G., et al. (2013). Feasibility of long-term patient self-reporting of toxicities from home via the Internet during routine chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31(20), 2580–2585. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Judson, T. J., Bennett, A. V., Rogak, L. J., Sit, L., Barz, A., Kris, M. G., et al. (2013). Feasibility of long-term patient self-reporting of toxicities from home via the Internet during routine chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31(20), 2580–2585. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Nama, V., Nordin, A., & Bryant, A. (2013). Patient-reported outcome measures for follow-up after gynaecological cancer treatment. Cochrane Database System Review, 11, CD010299. Nama, V., Nordin, A., & Bryant, A. (2013). Patient-reported outcome measures for follow-up after gynaecological cancer treatment. Cochrane Database System Review, 11, CD010299.
35.
go back to reference Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78–S94. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78–S94. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Evaluation of point-of-care PRO assessment in clinic settings: integration, parallel-forms reliability, and patient acceptability of electronic QOL measures during clinic visits
Auteurs
Pranav Sharma
Rodney L. Dunn
John T. Wei
James E. Montie
Scott M. Gilbert
Publicatiedatum
01-03-2016
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1113-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2016

Quality of Life Research 3/2016 Naar de uitgave

Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only)

Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis

Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only)

Use of weekly assessment data to enhance evaluation of a subjective wellbeing intervention