It takes a (virtual) village: crowdsourcing measurement consensus to advance survivorship care planning

ABSTRACTWe report results from the use of an innovative tool (the Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) database) to drive consensus on the use of measures evaluating the efficacy and implementation of survivorship care plans. The goal of this initiative was to increase the use of publicly available shared measures to enable comparability across studies. Between February and August 2012, research and practice communities populated the GEM platform with constructs and measures relevant to survivorship care planning, rated the measures, and provided qualitative feedback on the quality of the measures. Fifty-one constructs and 124 measures were entered into the GEM-Care Planning workspace by participants. The greatest number of measures appeared in the domains of Health and Psychosocial Outcomes, Health Behaviors, and Coordination of Care/Transitional Care. Using technology-mediated social participation, GEM presents a novel approach to how we measure and improve the quality of survivorship care.

[1]  G. Pond,et al.  Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized, clinical trial of patients with breast cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  Theresa Wizemann,et al.  Informatics Needs and Challenges in Cancer Research: Workshop Summary , 2012 .

[3]  E. Beckjord,et al.  Using Collaborative Web Technology to Construct the Health Information National Trends Survey , 2012, Journal of health communication.

[4]  Thomas J. Smith,et al.  Is it time for (survivorship care) plan B? , 2011, Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Maureen Boyle,et al.  Harmonized patient-reported data elements in the electronic health record: supporting meaningful use by primary care action on health behaviors and key psychosocial factors , 2012, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[6]  J. Rowland,et al.  Can't see the forest for the care plan: a call to revisit the context of care planning. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  Karim R. huff,et al.  The Open Source Paradigm Shift , 2007 .

[8]  S. Palmer,et al.  Survivorship care planning after the Institute of Medicine recommendations: how are we faring? , 2011, Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice.

[9]  Sean A. Munson,et al.  Social Participation in Health 2.0 , 2010, Computer.

[10]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do , 2002, UBIQ.

[11]  C. Earle,et al.  Cancer survivorship care: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  Phyllis Butow,et al.  Survivorship care after breast cancer treatment--experiences and preferences of Australian women. , 2011, Breast.

[13]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction , 1998 .

[14]  Cynthia Helba,et al.  Grid-enabled measures: using Science 2.0 to standardize measures and share data. , 2011, American journal of preventive medicine.

[15]  Michael A. Nielsen,et al.  Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science , 2011 .

[16]  S. Palmer,et al.  Survivorship care plans: an argument for evidence over common sense. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  D. Shibata,et al.  Survivorship Care Planning in Colorectal Cancer: Feedback from Survivors & Providers , 2012, Journal of psychosocial oncology.

[18]  Bradford W. Hesse,et al.  Realizing the Promise of Web 2.0: Engaging Community Intelligence , 2011, Journal of health communication.

[19]  Judith K Jones,et al.  Increasing rates of breast cancer and cardiac surveillance among high‐risk survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma following a mailed, one‐page survivorship care plan , 2011, Pediatric blood & cancer.

[20]  Sue S. Feldman,et al.  Health cyberinfrastructure for collaborative use-inspired research and practice. , 2011, American journal of preventive medicine.

[21]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Cyberinfrastructure for Social Action on National Priorities , 2010, Computer.

[22]  Sharyl J. Nass,et al.  Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis , 2014 .

[23]  Kei Koizumi,et al.  Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research , 2016 .

[24]  B. Hesse.  Of mice and mentors: developing cyber-infrastructure to support transdisciplinary scientific collaboration. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[25]  Patricia A. Ganz,et al.  From cancer patient to cancer survivor : lost in transition , 2006 .

[26]  R. Saunders,et al.  Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America , 2013 .

[27]  Karim R. Lakhani,et al.  Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software , 2005 .

[28]  Sophia K Smith,et al.  Patient and provider preferences for survivorship care plans. , 2012, Journal of oncology practice.

[29]  M. Jefford,et al.  Development and Pilot Testing of a Nurse-Led Posttreatment Support Package for Bowel Cancer Survivors , 2011, Cancer nursing.

[30]  J. Emery,et al.  Improving survivorship care. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[31]  G. Pond,et al.  Reply to M. Jefford et al and C.T. Stricker et al , 2012 .