Development and Feasibility Testing of PROMPT-Care, an eHealth System for Collection and Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care: A Study Protocol

Background Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been used widely to screen for depression, anxiety, and symptoms in cancer patients. Computer-based applications that collect patients’ responses and transfer them to the treating health professional in real time have the potential to improve patient well-being and cancer outcomes. Objective This study will test the feasibility and acceptability of a newly developed eHealth system which facilitates PRO data capture from cancer patients, data linkage and retrieval to support clinical decisions and patient self-management, and data retrieval to support ongoing evaluation and innovative research. Methods The eHealth system is being developed in consultation with 3 overarching content-specific expert advisory groups convened for this project: the clinical advisory group, technical advisory group, and evaluation advisory group. The following work has already been completed during this phase of the study: the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care) eHealth system was developed, patient-reported outcomes were selected (distress, symptoms, unmet needs), algorithms to inform intervention thresholds for clinical and self-management were determined, clinician PRO feedback summary and longitudinal reports were designed, and patient self-management resources were collated. PROsaiq, a custom information technology system, will transfer PRO data in real time into the hospital-based oncology information system to support clinical decision making. The PROMPT-Care system feasibility and acceptability will be assessed through patients completing PROMPT-Care assessments, participating in face-to-face cognitive interviews, and completing evaluation surveys and telephone interviews and oncology staff participating in telephone interviews. Results Over the course of 3 months, the system will be pilot-tested with up to 50 patients receiving treatment or follow-up care and 6 oncology staff at 2 hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Data will be collected to determine the accuracy and completeness of data transfer procedures, extent of missing data from participants’ assessments, acceptability of the eHealth system and usefulness of the self-management resources (via patient evaluation surveys and interviews), and acceptability and perceived usefulness of real-time PRO reporting (via oncology staff interviews) at the completion of the pilot phase. Conclusions This research investigates implementation of evidence into real world clinical practice through development of an efficient and user-friendly eHealth system. This study of feasibility and acceptability of the newly developed eHealth system will inform the next stage of larger scale testing and future implementation of the system as part of routine care. ClinicalTrial Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261500135294; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=369299&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6lzylG5A0)

[1]  Andrew Miller,et al.  PROsaiq: A Smart Device-Based and EMR-Integrated System for Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Routine Cancer Care , 2014, Journal of Radiation Oncology Informatics.

[2]  Deborah Schrag,et al.  Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  A. Girgis,et al.  Utilising ehealth to support survivorship care , 2015 .

[4]  M. McGrail,et al.  Cancer patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of a supportive care screening and referral process , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[5]  Amy P Abernethy,et al.  Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. , 2014, Journal of oncology practice.

[6]  Victor M Montori,et al.  Harmonizing and consolidating the measurement of patient-reported information at health care institutions: a position statement of the Mayo Clinic , 2014, Patient related outcome measures.

[7]  José-Luis Padilla,et al.  How Cognitive Interviewing can Provide Validity Evidence of the Response Processes to Scale Items , 2013 .

[8]  Jack Chen,et al.  A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting , 2013, BMC Health Services Research.

[9]  C. de Klerk,et al.  Cut points on 0-10 numeric rating scales for symptoms included in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in cancer patients: a systematic review. , 2013, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[10]  M. King,et al.  The next generation of the supportive care needs survey: a brief screening tool for administration in the clinical oncology setting , 2012, Psycho-oncology.

[11]  A. Mitchell,et al.  Screening for distress and depression in cancer settings: 10 lessons from 40 years of primary‐care research , 2011, Psycho-oncology.

[12]  Bryant T Karras,et al.  Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  Glenn W. Jones,et al.  A review of the reliability and validity of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System , 2009, Current oncology.

[14]  P. Selby,et al.  The clinical value of quality of life assessment in oncology practice—a qualitative study of patient and physician views , 2008, Psycho-oncology.

[15]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature , 2008, Quality of Life Research.

[16]  E. McColl Cognitive Interviewing. A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design , 2006, Quality of Life Research.

[17]  A. Girgis,et al.  Proactive routine monitoring and intervention to reduce the psychosocial impact of cancer therapy , 2005 .

[18]  N. Rankin,et al.  Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer , 2005, Psycho-oncology.

[19]  J. Turner,et al.  Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer. Welcome support for GPs. , 2004, Australian family physician.

[20]  Distress management. Clinical practice guidelines. , 2003, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[21]  J. Holland,et al.  Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma , 1998, Cancer.