Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Clinical Care Using Electronic Administration and Telehealth Technologies: Realist Synthesis of Potential Mechanisms for Improving Health Outcomes.
PROM
PROMs
cancer
eHealth
ePROM
electronic patient-reported outcome measure
literature review
mobile phone
narrative review
oncology
outcome measure
outcome measures
patient reported
patient-reported outcome measure
realist
realist synthesis
review methodology
review methods
search strategy
self-reporting
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:
28 Nov 2023
28 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
25
04
2023
accepted:
26
10
2023
revised:
13
07
2023
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
28
11
2023
entrez:
28
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The routine measurement of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical care using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is gaining momentum worldwide. However, a deep understanding of the mechanisms underpinning ePROM interventions that could inform their optimal design to improve health outcomes is needed. This study aims to identify the implicit mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of ePROM interventions and develop program theories about how and when ePROM interventions improve health outcomes. A realist synthesis of the literature about ePROM interventions in cancer clinical care was performed. A conceptual framework of ePROM interventions was constructed to define the scope of the review and frame the initial program theories. Literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL, supplemented by citation tracking, were performed to identify relevant literature to develop, refine, and test program theories. Quality appraisal of relevant studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Overall, 61 studies were included in the realist synthesis: 15 (25%) mixed methods studies, 9 (15%) qualitative studies, 13 (21%) descriptive studies, 21 (34%) randomized controlled trials, and 3 (5%) quasi-experimental studies. In total, 3 initial program theories were developed regarding the salient components of ePROM interventions-remote self-reporting, real-time feedback to clinicians, and clinician-patient telecommunication. The refined theories posit that remote self-reporting enables patients to recognize and report symptoms accurately and empowers them to communicate these to clinicians, real-time feedback prompts clinicians to manage symptoms proactively, and clinician-patient telephone interactions and e-interactions between clinic encounters improve symptom management by reshaping how clinicians and patients communicate. However, the intervention may not achieve the intended benefit if ePROMs become a reminder to patients of their illness and are not meaningful to them and when real-time feedback to clinicians lacks relevance and increases the workload. The key to improving health outcomes through ePROM interventions is enabling better symptom reporting and communication through remote symptom self-reporting, promoting proactive management of symptoms through real-time clinician feedback, and facilitating clinician-patient interactions. Patient engagement with self-reporting and clinician engagement in responding to feedback are vital and may reinforce each other in improving outcomes. Effective ePROM interventions might fundamentally alter how clinicians and patients interact between clinic encounters.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The routine measurement of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical care using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is gaining momentum worldwide. However, a deep understanding of the mechanisms underpinning ePROM interventions that could inform their optimal design to improve health outcomes is needed.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to identify the implicit mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of ePROM interventions and develop program theories about how and when ePROM interventions improve health outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
A realist synthesis of the literature about ePROM interventions in cancer clinical care was performed. A conceptual framework of ePROM interventions was constructed to define the scope of the review and frame the initial program theories. Literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL, supplemented by citation tracking, were performed to identify relevant literature to develop, refine, and test program theories. Quality appraisal of relevant studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 61 studies were included in the realist synthesis: 15 (25%) mixed methods studies, 9 (15%) qualitative studies, 13 (21%) descriptive studies, 21 (34%) randomized controlled trials, and 3 (5%) quasi-experimental studies. In total, 3 initial program theories were developed regarding the salient components of ePROM interventions-remote self-reporting, real-time feedback to clinicians, and clinician-patient telecommunication. The refined theories posit that remote self-reporting enables patients to recognize and report symptoms accurately and empowers them to communicate these to clinicians, real-time feedback prompts clinicians to manage symptoms proactively, and clinician-patient telephone interactions and e-interactions between clinic encounters improve symptom management by reshaping how clinicians and patients communicate. However, the intervention may not achieve the intended benefit if ePROMs become a reminder to patients of their illness and are not meaningful to them and when real-time feedback to clinicians lacks relevance and increases the workload.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The key to improving health outcomes through ePROM interventions is enabling better symptom reporting and communication through remote symptom self-reporting, promoting proactive management of symptoms through real-time clinician feedback, and facilitating clinician-patient interactions. Patient engagement with self-reporting and clinician engagement in responding to feedback are vital and may reinforce each other in improving outcomes. Effective ePROM interventions might fundamentally alter how clinicians and patients interact between clinic encounters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38015606
pii: v25i1e48483
doi: 10.2196/48483
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e48483Informations de copyright
©Ramkumar Govindaraj, Meera Agar, David Currow, Tim Luckett. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 28.11.2023.
Références
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Nov;127(2):273-7
pubmed: 22871467
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Nov;26(11):3721-3728
pubmed: 29732483
Cancer Nurs. 2013 Jan-Feb;36(1):18-28
pubmed: 23235499
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Feb;60(4):833-43
pubmed: 15571900
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 10;32(14):1480-501
pubmed: 24711559
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jan;21(1):80-94
pubmed: 31838009
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 24;19(10):e324
pubmed: 29066429
JAMA. 2022 Jun 28;327(24):2413-2422
pubmed: 35661856
JMIR Cancer. 2020 Dec 7;6(2):e22825
pubmed: 33284122
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Sep;22(9):2343-50
pubmed: 24687538
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26(9):1846-1858
pubmed: 25888610
Cancer Nurs. 2020 Sep/Oct;43(5):E273-E282
pubmed: 31361675
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 29;22(10):e19685
pubmed: 33118954
Ann Surg. 2021 Sep 1;274(3):441-448
pubmed: 34132697
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 02;19(10):e330
pubmed: 28970188
JMIR Form Res. 2020 Nov 17;4(11):e18982
pubmed: 33200997
JAMA Surg. 2021 Aug 1;156(8):740-746
pubmed: 34076691
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Mar 1;5(3):e224427
pubmed: 35357459
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008 Sep;12(4):380-6
pubmed: 18539527
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Feb;18(2):133-141
pubmed: 32023526
BMJ. 2021 Jul 21;374:n1647
pubmed: 34289996
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 1;9(1):e025185
pubmed: 30782751
Int J Med Inform. 2013 Jul;82(7):593-603
pubmed: 23507561
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 10;22(8):e17058
pubmed: 32663140
Qual Life Res. 2009 Sep;18(7):793-800
pubmed: 19544089
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 Jun;47(6):973-89
pubmed: 24210705
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:21-34
pubmed: 16053581
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2016 Feb 18;1(2):115-121
pubmed: 28740878
J Clin Oncol. 2005 May 20;23(15):3552-61
pubmed: 15908666
Palliat Med. 2011 Oct;25(7):675-81
pubmed: 21474620
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 21;17(10):e235
pubmed: 26489918
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Sep 1;109(9):
pubmed: 28423407
Support Care Cancer. 2021 Nov;29(11):6167-6170
pubmed: 33963910
Support Care Cancer. 2009 Apr;17(4):437-44
pubmed: 18953579
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65
pubmed: 26644527
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Feb;26(2):337-351
pubmed: 28921391
Cancer Med. 2020 Nov;9(21):7797-7799
pubmed: 33029950
Palliat Med. 2017 Jul;31(7):661-670
pubmed: 27836943
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Nov 12;22(11):e19180
pubmed: 33180025
JMIR Cancer. 2018 Dec 21;4(2):e10932
pubmed: 30578238
Acta Oncol. 2021 Apr;60(4):403-411
pubmed: 33345659
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul 10;31(20):2580-5
pubmed: 23733753
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Sep 15;2:42
pubmed: 30294712
Breast. 2020 Jun;51:85-93
pubmed: 32247251
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jun 11;13:211
pubmed: 23758898
Am Surg. 2015 Oct;81(10):1061-6
pubmed: 26463309
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 10;29(8):954-6
pubmed: 21282536
Cancer Med. 2017 Mar;6(3):537-546
pubmed: 28135050
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 12;23(3):e24638
pubmed: 33709929
Support Care Cancer. 2021 Jan;29(1):7-10
pubmed: 32844316
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Mar 1;39(7):734-747
pubmed: 33417506
JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020 Oct;4:947-957
pubmed: 33112661
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23;38:122-134
pubmed: 30231381
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Feb;26(2):361-374
pubmed: 28948360
Curr Oncol. 2022 Jun 17;29(6):4370-4385
pubmed: 35735458
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Sep 06;18(9):e238
pubmed: 27601354
Breast Cancer. 2021 Sep;28(5):1096-1099
pubmed: 33837509
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 1;25(34):5374-80
pubmed: 18048818
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jun 17;8(6):e17855
pubmed: 32554375
BMC Med. 2013 Jan 29;11:21
pubmed: 23360677
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2009 Mar;18(2):156-64
pubmed: 19267731
Med Decis Making. 2022 Jan;42(1):60-67
pubmed: 33899589
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2015 Oct;19(5):523-8
pubmed: 25813529
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019 May;28(3):e13095
pubmed: 31090160
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022 Jan 21;6(1):8
pubmed: 35061112
JCO Oncol Pract. 2021 Sep;17(9):e1303-e1310
pubmed: 33534634
Qual Life Res. 2016 Apr;25(4):835-46
pubmed: 26358064
J Cancer Surviv. 2018 Aug;12(4):431-440
pubmed: 29492753
Res Synth Methods. 2023 May;14(3):504-514
pubmed: 36872619
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
Qual Life Res. 2021 Nov;30(11):3229-3239
pubmed: 32535864
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Mar 01;5(3):e221078
pubmed: 35244701
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 9;22(4):e14896
pubmed: 32271150
CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 Sep-Oct;62(5):337-47
pubmed: 22811342
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 10;29(8):994-1000
pubmed: 21282546
Psychooncology. 2013 Apr;22(4):895-901
pubmed: 22544513
Oncology. 2020;98(6):379-385
pubmed: 30517946
Nat Med. 2022 Jun;28(6):1224-1231
pubmed: 35469070
J Oncol Pract. 2017 Aug;13(8):535-538
pubmed: 28682667
Support Care Cancer. 2022 Jan;30(1):659-668
pubmed: 34363495
Telemed J E Health. 2012 Mar;18(2):137-44
pubmed: 22381060
JMIR Perioper Med. 2020 Apr 3;3(1):e15588
pubmed: 33393920
J Cancer Surviv. 2016 Jun;10(3):573-82
pubmed: 26644190
J Oncol Pract. 2014 Jul;10(4):e215-22
pubmed: 24301843
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 Oct 30;4(1):88
pubmed: 33125537
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Oct;159(1):187-194
pubmed: 32718730
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Feb 10;20(1):102
pubmed: 32041593
Annu Rev Public Health. 2019 Apr 1;40:361-372
pubmed: 30633712
Psychooncology. 2020 Apr;29(4):591-603
pubmed: 31834650
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jan;148(1):1-2
pubmed: 29304953
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015 Dec 23;15:110
pubmed: 26699708
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Aug;150(2):311-317
pubmed: 29903391
Support Care Cancer. 2021 Jun;29(6):3401-3408
pubmed: 33515304
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Jun;22(6):1467-73
pubmed: 24414998
Support Care Cancer. 2021 Feb;29(2):859-867
pubmed: 32519044