Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
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
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

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.
vorige artikel Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis
volgende artikel Implementation of the Kids-CAT in clinical settings: a newly developed computer-adaptive test to facilitate the assessment of patient-reported outcomes of children and adolescents in clinical practice in Germany
Literatuur
1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
6.
7.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
29.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

OriginalPaper

Stability of the 13-item sense of coherence (SOC) scale: a longitudinal prospective study in women treated for breast cancer

OriginalPaper

Ambulatory and diary methods can facilitate the measurement of patient-reported outcomes

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

Advantages and psychometric validation of proximal intensive assessments of patient-reported outcomes collected in daily life

OriginalPaper

Concurrent validity of the PROMIS® pediatric global health measure

OriginalPaper

Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D

OriginalPaper

Health-related needs of people with multiple chronic diseases: differences and underlying factors