Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

02-01-2021 | Special Section: Feedback Tools

Feasibility of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment for cancer patients using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) in daily clinical practice

Auteurs: Guillaume Mouillet, Antoine Falcoz, Joëlle Fritzsch, Hamadi Almotlak, Pascale Jacoulet, Xavier Pivot, Cristian Villanueva, Laura Mansi, Stefano Kim, Elsa Curtit, Nathalie Meneveau, Olivier Adotevi, Marine Jary, Guillaume Eberst, Angelique Vienot, Fabien Calcagno, Astrid Pozet, Oumelkheir Djoumakh, Christophe Borg, Virginie Westeel, Amélie Anota, Sophie Paget-Bailly

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 11/2021

Abstract

Introduction

Routine Electronic Monitoring of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) (REMOQOL) in clinical care with real-time feedback to physicians could help to enhance patient-centered care. We evaluated the feasibility of REMOQOL in the French context in the QOLIBRY study. The primary objective was to assess the patients’ compliance with REMOQOL.

Methods

The QOLIBRY study was a single-center, prospective study conducted in the University Hospital of Besançon (France). Eligible patients were those treated with systemic therapies for breast, lung or colorectal cancer at any stage. Patients were invited to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and cancer-site-specific modules before each visit on tablets and/or computers in the hospital or at home. During the consultation, physicians had real-time access to visual summaries of HRQoL scores. Compliance was assessed as adequate if at least 66% of HRQoL assessments were completed during the 4 months of follow-up.

Results

Between March 2016 and October 2018, 177 patients were included in the QOLIBRY study. Median age was 64 years (IQR 54–71). The proportion of patients with an adequate compliance rate was 95.5% (n = 63) in the breast cancer cohort, 98.2% (n = 55) in the colorectal cancer cohort, and 90.9% (n = 50) in the lung cancer cohort. The physicians checked the HRQoL results in 73.1% of visits and prescribed supportive care and adapted patient management in 8.3% and 5.2% of visits, respectively.

Conclusion & perspectives

The results of QOLIBRY study suggest that REMOQOL is feasible in the French context. However, information about HRQoL monitoring, training of the physicians in the use of the software, and recommendations for using HRQoL results to guide care are essential and must be improved.

vorige artikel Feasibility of implementing a text-based symptom-monitoring program of endometrial, ovarian, and breast cancer patients during treatment

volgende artikel Clinicians’ perspective on the implemented KLIK PROM portal in clinical practice

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Bottomley, A., Pe, M., Sloan, J., et al. (2016). Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: A start in setting international standards. The Lancet Oncology, 17, e510–e514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30510-1. CrossRefPubMed

European Medicines Agency European Medicines Agency. (2016). Clinical efficacy and safety—Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man—the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. Retrieved July 27, 2016 from http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_001127.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580034cf3.

Luckett, T., Butow, P. N., & King, M. T. (2009). Improving patient outcomes through the routine use of patient-reported data in cancer clinics: Future directions. Psychooncology, 18, 1129–1138. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1545. CrossRefPubMed

Kotronoulas, G., Kearney, N., Maguire, R., et al. (2014). What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. JCO, 32, 1480–1501. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948. CrossRef

Howell, D., Molloy, S., Wilkinson, K., et al. (2015). Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: A scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. The Annals of Oncology, 26, 1846–1858. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv181. CrossRefPubMed

King, S., Exley, J., Parks, S., et al. (2016). The use and impact of quality of life assessment tools in clinical care settings for cancer patients, with a particular emphasis on brain cancer: Insights from a systematic review and stakeholder consultations. Quality of Life Research, 25, 2245–2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1278-6. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Yang, L. Y., Manhas, D. S., Howard, A. F., & Olson, R. A. (2018). Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: A systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Supportive Care in Cancer, 26, 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3865-7. CrossRefPubMed

Anatchkova, M., Donelson, S. M., Skalicky, A. M., et al. (2018). Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: Need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature. The Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2, 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0091-0. CrossRefPubMed

Berry, D. L., Hong, F., Halpenny, B., et al. (2014). Electronic self-report assessment for cancer and self-care support: Results of a multicenter randomized trial. The Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32, 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.48.6662. CrossRefPubMed

10.

Chen, J., Ou, L., & Hollis, S. J. (2013). A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Services Research, 13, 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-211. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Basch, E., Deal, A. M., Kris, M. G., et al. (2016). Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34, 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830. CrossRefPubMed

12.

Denis, F., Lethrosne, C., Pourel, N., et al. (2017). Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. The Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx029. CrossRefPubMed

13.

Basch, E., Deal, A. M., Dueck, A. C., et al. (2017). Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA, 318, 197–198. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7156. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Denis, F., Basch, E., Septans, A.-L., et al. (2019). Two-year survival comparing web-based symptom monitoring vs routine surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. JAMA, 321, 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.18085. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Wever, L. D., et al. (2001). The patient-physician relationship. Patient-physician communication during outpatient palliative treatment visits: An observational study. JAMA, 285, 1351–1357. CrossRef

16.

Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., et al. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288, 3027–3034. CrossRef

17.

Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 714–724. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078. CrossRefPubMed

18.

Wintner, L. M., Sztankay, M., Aaronson, N., et al. (2016). The use of EORTC measures in daily clinical practice-A synopsis of a newly developed manual. The European Journal of Cancer, 68, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.08.024. CrossRefPubMed

19.

Basch, E., & Snyder, C. (2017). Overcoming barriers to integrating patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice and electronic health records. The Annals of Oncology, 28, 2332–2333. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx506. CrossRefPubMed

20.

Chan, E. K. H., Edwards, T. C., Haywood, K., et al. (2018). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: A companion guide to the ISOQOL user’s guide. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2048-4. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Mouillet, G., Fritzsch, J., Paget-Bailly, S., et al. (2019). Health-related quality of life assessment for patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor using electronic patient-reported outcomes in daily clinical practice (QUANARIE trial): Study protocol. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 17, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1085-1. CrossRef

22.

Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in International Clinical Trials in Oncology. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365. CrossRefPubMed

23.

Bergman, B., Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., et al. (1994). The EORTC QLQ-LC13: A modular supplement to the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. The European Journal of Cancer, 30A, 635–642. CrossRef

24.

Sprangers, M. A., Groenvold, M., Arraras, J. I., et al. (1996). The European Organization for research and treatment of cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: First results from a three-country field study. The Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14, 2756–2768. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.10.2756. CrossRefPubMed

25.

Whistance, R. N., Conroy, T., Chie, W., et al. (2009). Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer. The European Journal of Cancer, 45, 3017–3026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2009.08.014. CrossRefPubMed

26.

Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002087. CrossRefPubMed

27.

Holzner, B., Giesinger, J. M., Pinggera, J., et al. (2012). The Computer-based Health Evaluation Software (CHES): A software for electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12, 126. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-126. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Mouillet, G., Fritzsch, J., Thiery-Vuillemin, A., et al. (2019). Physicians’ satisfaction with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment in daily clinical practice using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) for cancer patients. Annals of Oncology, 30, v729–v730. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz265.035. CrossRef

29.

Julious, S. A. (2005). Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 4, 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.185. CrossRef

30.

Sim, J., & Lewis, M. (2012). The size of a pilot study for a clinical trial should be calculated in relation to considerations of precision and efficiency. The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.07.011. CrossRefPubMed

31.

Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., et al. (1999). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. Brussels: Eortc.

32.

R: The R Project for Statistical Computing (2020). Retrieved November 10, 2020 from https://www.r-project.org/index.html.

33.

Schuler, M. K., Trautmann, F., Radloff, M., et al. (2016). Implementation of a mobile inpatient quality of life (QoL) assessment for oncology nursing. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24, 3391–3399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3163-9. CrossRefPubMed

34.

Bottomley, A., Vachalec, S., Bjordal, K., et al. (2002). The development and utilisation of the European Organisation for research and treatment of cancer quality of life group item bank. The European Journal of Cancer, 38, 1611–1614. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00125-9. CrossRefPubMed

35.

Snyder, C. F., Jensen, R. E., Geller, G., et al. (2010). Relevant content for a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire for use in oncology clinical practice: Putting doctors and patients on the same page. Quality of Life Research, 19, 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9655-z. CrossRefPubMed

36.

Trautmann, F., Hentschel, L., Hornemann, B., et al. (2016). Electronic real-time assessment of patient-reported outcomes in routine care-first findings and experiences from the implementation in a comprehensive cancer center. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24, 3047–3056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3127-0. CrossRefPubMed

37.

Duncan, E. A. S., & Murray, J. (2012). The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 12, 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-96. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Antunes, B., Harding, R., Higginson, I. J., & EUROIMPACT. (2014). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: A systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliative Medicine, 28, 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216313491619. CrossRefPubMed

39.

Mitchell, A. J. (2013). Screening for cancer-related distress: When is implementation successful and when is it unsuccessful? Acta Oncologica, 52, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2012.745949. CrossRefPubMed

40.

Mejdahl, C. T., Schougaard, L. M. V., Hjollund, N. H., et al. (2020). Patient-reported outcome measures in the interaction between patient and clinician—A multi-perspective qualitative study. The Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 4, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0170-x. CrossRefPubMed

41.

Velikova, G., Keding, A., Harley, C., et al. (2010). Patients report improvements in continuity of care when quality of life assessments are used routinely in oncology practice: Secondary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. The European Journal of Cancer, 46, 2381–2388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.030. CrossRefPubMed

42.

Whittle, A. K., Kalsi, T., Babic-Illman, G., et al. (2017). A comprehensive geriatric assessment screening questionnaire (CGA-GOLD) for older people undergoing treatment for cancer. The European Journal of Cancer Care (Engl). https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12509. CrossRef

43.

Giesinger, J. M., Loth, F. L. C., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (2020). Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research. The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 118, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.003. CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Feasibility of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment for cancer patients using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) in daily clinical practice
Auteurs: Guillaume Mouillet
Antoine Falcoz
Joëlle Fritzsch
Hamadi Almotlak
Pascale Jacoulet
Xavier Pivot
Cristian Villanueva
Laura Mansi
Stefano Kim
Elsa Curtit
Nathalie Meneveau
Olivier Adotevi
Marine Jary
Guillaume Eberst
Angelique Vienot
Fabien Calcagno
Astrid Pozet
Oumelkheir Djoumakh
Christophe Borg
Virginie Westeel
Amélie Anota
Sophie Paget-Bailly
Publicatiedatum: 02-01-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 11/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02721-0

Mijn bibliotheek

Shop

Tips voor Mijn BSL

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Feasibility of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment for cancer patients using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) in daily clinical practice

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion & perspectives

Mijn bibliotheek

Shop Chevron down icon Chevron up icon

Tips voor Mijn BSL

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion & perspectives

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 11/2021

Complexity and potentials of clinical feedback in mental health: an in-depth study of patient processes

GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study

Racial differences in user experiences and perceived value of electronic symptom monitoring in a cohort of black and white bladder and prostate cancer patients

Initial quantitative development of the Norse Feedback system: a novel clinical feedback system for routine mental healthcare

Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings

Development and usability of a feedback tool, “My Personal Brain Health Dashboard”, to improve setting of self-management goals among people living with HIV in Canada

Shop