Participation in Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Collection as a Part of Routine Supportive Care Delivery in Oncology.

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY JCO oncology practice Pub Date : 2025-03-05 DOI:10.1200/OP-24-00760
SriVarsha Katoju, Oliver T Nguyen, Sahana Rajasekhara, Young-Rock Hong, Amir Alishahi Tabriz, Kea Turner
{"title":"Participation in Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Collection as a Part of Routine Supportive Care Delivery in Oncology.","authors":"SriVarsha Katoju, Oliver T Nguyen, Sahana Rajasekhara, Young-Rock Hong, Amir Alishahi Tabriz, Kea Turner","doi":"10.1200/OP-24-00760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in supportive cancer care can lead to benefits, such as identifying at-risk patients in need of closer monitoring and treatment. Despite these benefits, most studies examining ePROMs in this area were for clinical trials rather than standard care. Since there is a need to identify which patients are more likely to participate in ePROMs, this study assessed ePROM participation rates and factors influencing greater participation among patients receiving supportive care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective data analysis took place at a supportive care clinic within a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the southeastern United States. Starting in 2017, ePROM assessments were implemented using tablets for in-person appointments at the clinic. The assessments included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System with additional questions added for other symptoms. Logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression models were used to analyze factors associated with ePROM assessment submission.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 4,780 patients, with 42.7% submitting at least one ePROM assessment. Higher odds of ePROM submission were observed among patients age 35-64 years, had Medicare, had nonmetastatic cancer, or had genitourinary, breast, or multiple cancers. Additionally, higher rates of ePROM submissions were observed among patients who were younger; had GI, breast, or multiple cancers; had nonmetastatic cancer; or had private insurance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study reveals that submission rates of ePROM assessments in a cancer center's supportive care clinic may be influenced by patient demographics, cancer history, and social determinants of health. Interventions to improve ePROM submission rates may need to be tailored on the basis of cancer site, presence of metastatic cancer, and caregiver support.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2400760"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-24-00760","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in supportive cancer care can lead to benefits, such as identifying at-risk patients in need of closer monitoring and treatment. Despite these benefits, most studies examining ePROMs in this area were for clinical trials rather than standard care. Since there is a need to identify which patients are more likely to participate in ePROMs, this study assessed ePROM participation rates and factors influencing greater participation among patients receiving supportive care.

Methods: This retrospective data analysis took place at a supportive care clinic within a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the southeastern United States. Starting in 2017, ePROM assessments were implemented using tablets for in-person appointments at the clinic. The assessments included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System with additional questions added for other symptoms. Logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression models were used to analyze factors associated with ePROM assessment submission.

Results: The study included 4,780 patients, with 42.7% submitting at least one ePROM assessment. Higher odds of ePROM submission were observed among patients age 35-64 years, had Medicare, had nonmetastatic cancer, or had genitourinary, breast, or multiple cancers. Additionally, higher rates of ePROM submissions were observed among patients who were younger; had GI, breast, or multiple cancers; had nonmetastatic cancer; or had private insurance.

Conclusion: This study reveals that submission rates of ePROM assessments in a cancer center's supportive care clinic may be influenced by patient demographics, cancer history, and social determinants of health. Interventions to improve ePROM submission rates may need to be tailored on the basis of cancer site, presence of metastatic cancer, and caregiver support.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
期刊最新文献
Health-Related Quality of Life for Persons Treated or Monitored for Anal High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions (AMC-A01). Recent Developments in the Management of Renal Cell Cancer. Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment: A Practical Guide for Oncologists. Participation in Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Collection as a Part of Routine Supportive Care Delivery in Oncology. Real-World Tolerability of Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin in Patients in the United States With Localized Colorectal Cancer Undergoing Curative-Intent Treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1