Participation in Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Collection as a Part of Routine Supportive Care Delivery in Oncology.

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
SriVarsha Katoju, Oliver T Nguyen, Sahana Rajasekhara, Young-Rock Hong, Amir Alishahi Tabriz, Kea Turner
{"title":"Participation in Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Collection as a Part of Routine Supportive Care Delivery in Oncology.","authors":"SriVarsha Katoju, Oliver T Nguyen, Sahana Rajasekhara, Young-Rock Hong, Amir Alishahi Tabriz, Kea Turner","doi":"10.1200/OP-24-00760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in supportive cancer care can lead to benefits, such as identifying at-risk patients in need of closer monitoring and treatment. Despite these benefits, most studies examining ePROMs in this area were for clinical trials rather than standard care. Since there is a need to identify which patients are more likely to participate in ePROMs, this study assessed ePROM participation rates and factors influencing greater participation among patients receiving supportive care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective data analysis took place at a supportive care clinic within a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the southeastern United States. Starting in 2017, ePROM assessments were implemented using tablets for in-person appointments at the clinic. The assessments included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System with additional questions added for other symptoms. Logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression models were used to analyze factors associated with ePROM assessment submission.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 4,780 patients, with 42.7% submitting at least one ePROM assessment. Higher odds of ePROM submission were observed among patients age 35-64 years, had Medicare, had nonmetastatic cancer, or had genitourinary, breast, or multiple cancers. Additionally, higher rates of ePROM submissions were observed among patients who were younger; had GI, breast, or multiple cancers; had nonmetastatic cancer; or had private insurance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study reveals that submission rates of ePROM assessments in a cancer center's supportive care clinic may be influenced by patient demographics, cancer history, and social determinants of health. Interventions to improve ePROM submission rates may need to be tailored on the basis of cancer site, presence of metastatic cancer, and caregiver support.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2400760"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-24-00760","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in supportive cancer care can lead to benefits, such as identifying at-risk patients in need of closer monitoring and treatment. Despite these benefits, most studies examining ePROMs in this area were for clinical trials rather than standard care. Since there is a need to identify which patients are more likely to participate in ePROMs, this study assessed ePROM participation rates and factors influencing greater participation among patients receiving supportive care.

Methods: This retrospective data analysis took place at a supportive care clinic within a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the southeastern United States. Starting in 2017, ePROM assessments were implemented using tablets for in-person appointments at the clinic. The assessments included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System with additional questions added for other symptoms. Logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression models were used to analyze factors associated with ePROM assessment submission.

Results: The study included 4,780 patients, with 42.7% submitting at least one ePROM assessment. Higher odds of ePROM submission were observed among patients age 35-64 years, had Medicare, had nonmetastatic cancer, or had genitourinary, breast, or multiple cancers. Additionally, higher rates of ePROM submissions were observed among patients who were younger; had GI, breast, or multiple cancers; had nonmetastatic cancer; or had private insurance.

Conclusion: This study reveals that submission rates of ePROM assessments in a cancer center's supportive care clinic may be influenced by patient demographics, cancer history, and social determinants of health. Interventions to improve ePROM submission rates may need to be tailored on the basis of cancer site, presence of metastatic cancer, and caregiver support.

作为肿瘤学常规支持性护理交付的一部分,参与电子患者报告的结果测量收集。
目的:在支持性癌症治疗中使用电子患者报告结果测量(ePROMs)可以带来益处,例如识别需要更密切监测和治疗的高危患者。尽管有这些好处,但大多数关于eprom在这一领域的研究都是临床试验,而不是标准治疗。由于需要确定哪些患者更有可能参与ePROM,因此本研究评估了接受支持性治疗的患者中ePROM的参与率和影响更大参与率的因素。方法:回顾性数据分析在美国东南部国家癌症研究所指定的综合癌症中心的一个支持性护理诊所进行。从2017年开始,ePROM评估使用平板电脑在诊所进行面对面预约。评估包括患者健康问卷-9、国家综合癌症网络痛苦温度计和埃德蒙顿症状评估系统,并为其他症状增加了额外的问题。采用Logistic回归和零截断负二项回归模型分析ePROM评估提交的相关因素。结果:该研究纳入了4780例患者,其中42.7%的患者至少提交了一次ePROM评估。在35-64岁、有医疗保险、非转移性癌症、泌尿生殖系统、乳腺癌或多发性癌症的患者中,ePROM提交的几率更高。此外,在年轻患者中观察到较高的ePROM提交率;患有胃肠道、乳腺癌或多种癌症;患有非转移性癌症;或者有私人保险。结论:本研究揭示了癌症中心支持性护理诊所ePROM评估的提交率可能受到患者人口统计学、癌症病史和健康的社会决定因素的影响。提高ePROM提交率的干预措施可能需要根据癌症部位、转移性癌症的存在和护理人员的支持进行定制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信