Acceptability of Routine Evaluations Using Patient-Reported Outcomes of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Other Patient-Reported Symptom Outcome Tools in Cancer Outpatients: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Experience.
Adolescent
Adult
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems
/ statistics & numerical data
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Ambulatory Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ adverse effects
Combined Modality Therapy
Cross-Sectional Studies
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
/ classification
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasms
/ pathology
Nomograms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
Severity of Illness Index
Young Adult
Cancer outpatient clinics
Health outcome
Patient‐reported outcomes questionnaires
Real‐time evaluations
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2019
11 2019
Historique:
received:
28
11
2018
accepted:
27
06
2019
pubmed:
15
8
2019
medline:
1
8
2020
entrez:
15
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recent studies have demonstrated improved outcomes with real-time patient-reported outcome questionnaires (PRO questionnaires) using questions adapted for patient use from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Outside of the clinical trial setting, limited information exists on factors affecting the completion of PRO questionnaires in routine practice. The primary aim of this prospective cross-sectional study was to evaluate patient willingness to complete PRO questionnaires on a regular basis and to better understand responder biases to improve patient feedback. Patients performing PRO-CTCAE toxicity and symptom PRO questionnaires in oncology clinics at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2013 to 2016 were assessed for their willingness to complete PRO questionnaires using a nine-item, tablet-based acceptability survey. Patient-reported characteristics (i.e., age, sex, language, marital status, education, occupation, etc.), cancer type, treatment modalities, and health metrics (i.e., Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) were also collected. Characteristics were evaluated by logistic regression (odds ratios [OR]) using the primary outcome with prespecified levels of significance for univariate ( A total of 1,792 patients (median age 60 years; range 18-97) with various cancer diagnoses were assessed. A greater proportion of female (56%) and white (74%) respondents with an annual household income of <$100,000 (69%) participated. More than half (58%) of respondents were willing to complete PRO questionnaires at every clinic visit, and a high proportion (77%) found utility in reporting physical and emotional feelings to clinicians using PRO questionnaires. In general, patients did not find that PRO questionnaires made clinic visits more difficult (93%). In uni- and multivariable testing, patients were more willing to complete sleep- and fatigue-related PRO questionnaires relative to chemotoxicity-based PRO questionnaires (OR 1.52; Routine assessment using PRO questionnaires is associated with moderate acceptability by patients with cancer. Specific patient characteristics are associated with higher completion willingness. Additional research is necessary to identify factors associated with low acceptability of PRO questionnaires and to develop site-, ethnicity-, and treatment-specific instruments to assess the value of PRO questionnaires for symptom monitoring in clinical practice. This study will help to identify the clinical, demographic, and survey characteristics associated with willingness to complete patient-reported outcome questionnaires regularly in the cancer outpatient setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Recent studies have demonstrated improved outcomes with real-time patient-reported outcome questionnaires (PRO questionnaires) using questions adapted for patient use from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Outside of the clinical trial setting, limited information exists on factors affecting the completion of PRO questionnaires in routine practice. The primary aim of this prospective cross-sectional study was to evaluate patient willingness to complete PRO questionnaires on a regular basis and to better understand responder biases to improve patient feedback.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients performing PRO-CTCAE toxicity and symptom PRO questionnaires in oncology clinics at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2013 to 2016 were assessed for their willingness to complete PRO questionnaires using a nine-item, tablet-based acceptability survey. Patient-reported characteristics (i.e., age, sex, language, marital status, education, occupation, etc.), cancer type, treatment modalities, and health metrics (i.e., Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) were also collected. Characteristics were evaluated by logistic regression (odds ratios [OR]) using the primary outcome with prespecified levels of significance for univariate (
RESULTS
A total of 1,792 patients (median age 60 years; range 18-97) with various cancer diagnoses were assessed. A greater proportion of female (56%) and white (74%) respondents with an annual household income of <$100,000 (69%) participated. More than half (58%) of respondents were willing to complete PRO questionnaires at every clinic visit, and a high proportion (77%) found utility in reporting physical and emotional feelings to clinicians using PRO questionnaires. In general, patients did not find that PRO questionnaires made clinic visits more difficult (93%). In uni- and multivariable testing, patients were more willing to complete sleep- and fatigue-related PRO questionnaires relative to chemotoxicity-based PRO questionnaires (OR 1.52;
CONCLUSION
Routine assessment using PRO questionnaires is associated with moderate acceptability by patients with cancer. Specific patient characteristics are associated with higher completion willingness. Additional research is necessary to identify factors associated with low acceptability of PRO questionnaires and to develop site-, ethnicity-, and treatment-specific instruments to assess the value of PRO questionnaires for symptom monitoring in clinical practice.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
This study will help to identify the clinical, demographic, and survey characteristics associated with willingness to complete patient-reported outcome questionnaires regularly in the cancer outpatient setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31409744
pii: theoncologist.2018-0830
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0830
pmc: PMC6853088
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1219-e1227Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.
Références
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012 Mar 30;10:34
pubmed: 22462512
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 18;369(3):213-23
pubmed: 23863050
Qual Life Res. 2012 Sep;21(7):1159-64
pubmed: 21984468
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 10;26(8):1355-63
pubmed: 18227528
J Support Oncol. 2009 May-Jun;7(3):91-7
pubmed: 19507456
Psychooncology. 2012 Jun;21(6):594-601
pubmed: 21394821
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65
pubmed: 26644527
Am J Manag Care. 2008 Aug;14(8):530-9
pubmed: 18690769
Support Care Cancer. 2010 Sep;18(9):1179-89
pubmed: 19777269
Cancer Med. 2017 Mar;6(3):537-546
pubmed: 28135050
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec;14(12):763-772
pubmed: 28975931
J Palliat Med. 2008 May;11(4):627-32
pubmed: 18454616
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Sep 1;22(17):3485-90
pubmed: 15337796
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 1;25(34):5374-80
pubmed: 18048818
Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):1101-8
pubmed: 22152180
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Dec 21;103(24):1851-8
pubmed: 22157640
PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31115
pubmed: 22328929
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):218-25
pubmed: 23200295
N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 11;362(10):865-9
pubmed: 20220181
BMC Med. 2011 Jul 14;9:86
pubmed: 21756344
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Dec 1;30(34):4249-55
pubmed: 23071244