Patient-Reported Outcomes During Immunotherapy for Metastatic Melanoma: Mixed Methods Study of Patients' and Clinicians' Experiences.
CPIs, interviews
side effects, adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, PRO-CTCAE, melanoma, eHealth, immunotherapy, patient satisfaction
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 04 2020
09 04 2020
Historique:
received:
01
06
2019
accepted:
24
01
2020
revised:
16
10
2019
entrez:
10
4
2020
pubmed:
10
4
2020
medline:
4
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The benefits of electronic patient reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaires have been demonstrated in many settings, including in hospitals and patient homes. However, it remains to be investigated how melanoma patients and their treating clinicians experience the electronic self-reporting of side effects and the derived communication. The primary objective of this study was to examine patients' and clinicians' experiences with an eHealth intervention for weekly monitoring of side effects during treatment with immunotherapy. An eHealth intervention based on questions from the PRO-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) library was used and tested in a randomized clinical trial with patients receiving immunotherapy for malignant melanoma and clinicians at a university hospital in Denmark. On a weekly basis, patients reported their symptoms from home during the treatment via a provided tablet. The electronic patient reports were available to clinicians in the outpatient clinic. A mixed methods approach was applied to investigate the patients' and clinicians' experiences with the intervention. Data from patient experiences were collected in a short survey, the Patient Feedback Form. Moreover, a subset of the patients participating in the survey was interviewed about their experience. Furthermore, one focus group interview with clinicians was carried out to elucidate their views. A total of 57 patients completed the Patient Feedback Form, and 14 patients were interviewed. The focus group interview included 5 clinicians. Overall, patients and clinicians were satisfied with the tool. They believed it enhanced patients' awareness of side effects and increased their feeling of involvement. The patients reported that it was easy to fill out the questionnaire and that it made sense to do so. However, a minority of the patients expressed in the interviews that they did not believe that the health care professionals had seen their reports when they came to the clinic, and that the reporting did not lead to increased contact with the department. Overall, satisfaction with the eHealth intervention was high among patients and their treating clinicians. The tool was easy to use and contributed to greater symptom awareness and patient involvement. Thus, in terms of patient and clinician satisfaction with the tool, it makes sense to continue using the tool beyond the project period. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03073031; https://tinyurl.com/tjx3gtu.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The benefits of electronic patient reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaires have been demonstrated in many settings, including in hospitals and patient homes. However, it remains to be investigated how melanoma patients and their treating clinicians experience the electronic self-reporting of side effects and the derived communication.
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this study was to examine patients' and clinicians' experiences with an eHealth intervention for weekly monitoring of side effects during treatment with immunotherapy.
METHODS
An eHealth intervention based on questions from the PRO-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) library was used and tested in a randomized clinical trial with patients receiving immunotherapy for malignant melanoma and clinicians at a university hospital in Denmark. On a weekly basis, patients reported their symptoms from home during the treatment via a provided tablet. The electronic patient reports were available to clinicians in the outpatient clinic. A mixed methods approach was applied to investigate the patients' and clinicians' experiences with the intervention. Data from patient experiences were collected in a short survey, the Patient Feedback Form. Moreover, a subset of the patients participating in the survey was interviewed about their experience. Furthermore, one focus group interview with clinicians was carried out to elucidate their views.
RESULTS
A total of 57 patients completed the Patient Feedback Form, and 14 patients were interviewed. The focus group interview included 5 clinicians. Overall, patients and clinicians were satisfied with the tool. They believed it enhanced patients' awareness of side effects and increased their feeling of involvement. The patients reported that it was easy to fill out the questionnaire and that it made sense to do so. However, a minority of the patients expressed in the interviews that they did not believe that the health care professionals had seen their reports when they came to the clinic, and that the reporting did not lead to increased contact with the department.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, satisfaction with the eHealth intervention was high among patients and their treating clinicians. The tool was easy to use and contributed to greater symptom awareness and patient involvement. Thus, in terms of patient and clinician satisfaction with the tool, it makes sense to continue using the tool beyond the project period.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03073031; https://tinyurl.com/tjx3gtu.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32271150
pii: v22i4e14896
doi: 10.2196/14896
pmc: PMC7180512
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03073031']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14896Informations de copyright
©Lærke K Tolstrup, Helle Pappot, Lars Bastholt, Ann-Dorthe Zwisler, Karin B Dieperink. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 09.04.2020.
Références
Psychol Health. 2010 Dec;25(10):1229-45
pubmed: 20204937
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep 29;106(9):
pubmed: 25265940
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):76-87
pubmed: 23337218
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65
pubmed: 26644527
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019 Mar 21;3(1):19
pubmed: 30900035
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Nov;86:115-124
pubmed: 28987768
Clin Trials. 2017 Jun;14(3):255-263
pubmed: 28545337
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 10;33(8):910-5
pubmed: 25624439
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Apr 1;22(7):1553-8
pubmed: 26758559
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3167-77
pubmed: 11124733
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Dec 1;30(34):4249-55
pubmed: 23071244
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2012;:139-44
pubmed: 24451723
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 3;12(3):e0173316
pubmed: 28257472
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Sep;22(9):2343-50
pubmed: 24687538
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26(9):1846-1858
pubmed: 25888610
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):711-23
pubmed: 20525992
Support Care Cancer. 2016 Aug;24(8):3669-76
pubmed: 27260018
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jun 1;98(2):409-418
pubmed: 28463161
Patient. 2018 Dec;11(6):591-598
pubmed: 29968179
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 02;19(10):e330
pubmed: 28970188
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Jan;26(1):41-60
pubmed: 28849277
Br Dent J. 2008 Apr 26;204(8):429-32
pubmed: 18438371
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2017;37:695-704
pubmed: 28561689
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2018 Dec;18(12):1231-1239
pubmed: 30253680
J Clin Oncol. 2005 May 20;23(15):3552-61
pubmed: 15908666
Adv Ther. 2017 Feb;34(2):452-465
pubmed: 28000165
Acta Oncol. 2016;55(4):516-8
pubmed: 26359553
Qual Life Res. 2016 Mar;25(3):525-34
pubmed: 26790427
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Jul;58(1):137-156.e1
pubmed: 30905677
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;1(1):1
pubmed: 29757324
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Nov;1(8):1051-9
pubmed: 26270597
Nurs Health Sci. 2013 Sep;15(3):398-405
pubmed: 23480423
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23;38:122-134
pubmed: 30231381
Implement Sci. 2014 Feb 20;9:24
pubmed: 24555508
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 Apr 27;16(1):77
pubmed: 29703191
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 2;373(1):23-34
pubmed: 26027431
Healthc Pap. 2011;11(4):42-7; discussion 55-8
pubmed: 22543292
Br J Nurs. 2013 Feb 14-28;22(3):170-3
pubmed: 23411826
J Oncol Pract. 2014 Sep;10(5):e299-306
pubmed: 24986113
Br J Nurs. 2013 Jan 10-23;22(1):16-9
pubmed: 23299206
Health Serv Res. 2013 Dec;48(6 Pt 2):2134-56
pubmed: 24279835