社区肿瘤学实践中针对癌症幸存者的心血管健康电子病历应用的有效性:WF-1804CD 的结果。

IF 42.1 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Journal of Clinical Oncology Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1200/JCO.24.00342
Kathryn E Weaver, Emily V Dressler, Heidi D Klepin, Simon C Lee, Brian J Wells, Sydney Smith, W Gregory Hundley, Glenn J Lesser, Chandylen L Nightingale, Julie C Turner, Ian Lackey, Kevin Heard, Randi Foraker
{"title":"社区肿瘤学实践中针对癌症幸存者的心血管健康电子病历应用的有效性:WF-1804CD 的结果。","authors":"Kathryn E Weaver, Emily V Dressler, Heidi D Klepin, Simon C Lee, Brian J Wells, Sydney Smith, W Gregory Hundley, Glenn J Lesser, Chandylen L Nightingale, Julie C Turner, Ian Lackey, Kevin Heard, Randi Foraker","doi":"10.1200/JCO.24.00342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Guidelines recommend cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment and counseling for cancer survivors. This study evaluated the automated heart-health assessment (AH-HA) clinical decision support tool to promote provider-patient CV health (CVH) discussions in outpatient oncology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The AH-HA trial (WF-1804CD), coordinated by the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program Research Base, randomized practices to the AH-HA tool or usual care (UC) and enrolled survivors receiving routine care ≥6 months after curative cancer treatment. The tool displayed American Heart Association Life's Simple 7 CVH factors (BMI, physical activity, diet, smoking status, blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose), populated from the electronic health record (EHR), alongside cancer treatments received with cardiotoxic potential. The primary end point was survivor-reported discussion of nonideal or missing CVH factors. A mixed-effects logistic regression model assessed the effect of AH-HA on CVH discussions, adjusting for practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five UC and four AH-HA practices enrolled 645 survivors (82% breast, 8% endometrial, 5% colorectal, and 5% lymphoma, prostate, or multiple types) from October 1, 2020, to February 28, 2023. Most survivors were female (96%; 84% White/non-Hispanic, 8% Black; 3% Hispanic). Nearly all survivors (98%) in AH-HA practices reported a discussion for ≥1 nonideal or missing CVH factor compared with 55% in UC (<i>P</i> < .001). The average number of survivor-reported factors discussed was higher in AH-HA compared with UC (mean, 4.06 <i>v</i> 1.27; <i>P</i> < .001), as were EHR-documented discussions (3.83 <i>v</i> 0.77; <i>P</i> = .03). Survivors in AH-HA practices were also significantly more likely to report a recommendation to see a primary care provider (39%) compared with UC practices (25%, <i>P</i> = .02). Reported recommendations to see a cardiologist were low (approximately 6%) and did not differ between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The AH-HA tool was effective at promoting CVH discussions during routine follow-up care for survivors and recommendations to consult primary care.</p>","PeriodicalId":15384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"JCO2400342"},"PeriodicalIF":42.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of a Cardiovascular Health Electronic Health Record Application for Cancer Survivors in Community Oncology Practice: Results From WF-1804CD.\",\"authors\":\"Kathryn E Weaver, Emily V Dressler, Heidi D Klepin, Simon C Lee, Brian J Wells, Sydney Smith, W Gregory Hundley, Glenn J Lesser, Chandylen L Nightingale, Julie C Turner, Ian Lackey, Kevin Heard, Randi Foraker\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/JCO.24.00342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Guidelines recommend cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment and counseling for cancer survivors. This study evaluated the automated heart-health assessment (AH-HA) clinical decision support tool to promote provider-patient CV health (CVH) discussions in outpatient oncology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The AH-HA trial (WF-1804CD), coordinated by the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program Research Base, randomized practices to the AH-HA tool or usual care (UC) and enrolled survivors receiving routine care ≥6 months after curative cancer treatment. The tool displayed American Heart Association Life's Simple 7 CVH factors (BMI, physical activity, diet, smoking status, blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose), populated from the electronic health record (EHR), alongside cancer treatments received with cardiotoxic potential. The primary end point was survivor-reported discussion of nonideal or missing CVH factors. A mixed-effects logistic regression model assessed the effect of AH-HA on CVH discussions, adjusting for practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five UC and four AH-HA practices enrolled 645 survivors (82% breast, 8% endometrial, 5% colorectal, and 5% lymphoma, prostate, or multiple types) from October 1, 2020, to February 28, 2023. Most survivors were female (96%; 84% White/non-Hispanic, 8% Black; 3% Hispanic). Nearly all survivors (98%) in AH-HA practices reported a discussion for ≥1 nonideal or missing CVH factor compared with 55% in UC (<i>P</i> < .001). The average number of survivor-reported factors discussed was higher in AH-HA compared with UC (mean, 4.06 <i>v</i> 1.27; <i>P</i> < .001), as were EHR-documented discussions (3.83 <i>v</i> 0.77; <i>P</i> = .03). Survivors in AH-HA practices were also significantly more likely to report a recommendation to see a primary care provider (39%) compared with UC practices (25%, <i>P</i> = .02). Reported recommendations to see a cardiologist were low (approximately 6%) and did not differ between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The AH-HA tool was effective at promoting CVH discussions during routine follow-up care for survivors and recommendations to consult primary care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"JCO2400342\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":42.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00342\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00342","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

目的:指南建议对癌症幸存者进行心血管(CV)风险评估和咨询。本研究对自动心脏健康评估(AH-HA)临床决策支持工具进行了评估,以促进肿瘤科门诊中提供者与患者之间的心血管健康(CVH)讨论:AH-HA试验(WF-1804CD)由维克森林国家癌症研究所社区肿瘤学研究项目研究基地协调,该试验将医疗机构随机分配给AH-HA工具或常规护理(UC),并招募了接受癌症根治性治疗≥6个月后接受常规护理的幸存者。该工具显示了从电子健康记录(EHR)中提取的美国心脏协会生命简易 7 CVH 因素(体重指数、体力活动、饮食、吸烟状况、血压、胆固醇和血糖),以及所接受的具有心脏毒性的癌症治疗。主要终点是幸存者报告的对非理想或缺失的 CVH 因素的讨论。混合效应逻辑回归模型评估了AH-HA对CVH讨论的影响,并对实践进行了调整:从 2020 年 10 月 1 日到 2023 年 2 月 28 日,五家 UC 和四家 AH-HA 机构共招募了 645 名幸存者(82% 为乳腺癌,8% 为子宫内膜癌,5% 为结直肠癌,5% 为淋巴瘤、前列腺癌或多种类型)。大多数幸存者为女性(96%;84% 为白人/非西班牙裔,8% 为黑人;3% 为西班牙裔)。在 AH-HA 实践中,几乎所有幸存者(98%)都报告讨论了≥1 个非理想或缺失的 CVH 因素,而在 UC 实践中,这一比例为 55%(P < .001)。与 UC 相比,AH-HA 中幸存者报告的讨论因素平均数量更高(平均值为 4.06 v 1.27;P < .001),EHR 记录的讨论数量也更高(3.83 v 0.77;P = .03)。AH-HA 诊所的幸存者报告建议其去看初级保健医生的比例(39%)也明显高于 UC 诊所(25%,P = .02)。报告建议看心脏病专家的比例较低(约 6%),且组间无差异:结论:AH-HA 工具能有效促进幸存者在常规随访过程中讨论心血管健康问题,并建议其去看初级保健医生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Effectiveness of a Cardiovascular Health Electronic Health Record Application for Cancer Survivors in Community Oncology Practice: Results From WF-1804CD.

Purpose: Guidelines recommend cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment and counseling for cancer survivors. This study evaluated the automated heart-health assessment (AH-HA) clinical decision support tool to promote provider-patient CV health (CVH) discussions in outpatient oncology.

Methods: The AH-HA trial (WF-1804CD), coordinated by the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program Research Base, randomized practices to the AH-HA tool or usual care (UC) and enrolled survivors receiving routine care ≥6 months after curative cancer treatment. The tool displayed American Heart Association Life's Simple 7 CVH factors (BMI, physical activity, diet, smoking status, blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose), populated from the electronic health record (EHR), alongside cancer treatments received with cardiotoxic potential. The primary end point was survivor-reported discussion of nonideal or missing CVH factors. A mixed-effects logistic regression model assessed the effect of AH-HA on CVH discussions, adjusting for practice.

Results: Five UC and four AH-HA practices enrolled 645 survivors (82% breast, 8% endometrial, 5% colorectal, and 5% lymphoma, prostate, or multiple types) from October 1, 2020, to February 28, 2023. Most survivors were female (96%; 84% White/non-Hispanic, 8% Black; 3% Hispanic). Nearly all survivors (98%) in AH-HA practices reported a discussion for ≥1 nonideal or missing CVH factor compared with 55% in UC (P < .001). The average number of survivor-reported factors discussed was higher in AH-HA compared with UC (mean, 4.06 v 1.27; P < .001), as were EHR-documented discussions (3.83 v 0.77; P = .03). Survivors in AH-HA practices were also significantly more likely to report a recommendation to see a primary care provider (39%) compared with UC practices (25%, P = .02). Reported recommendations to see a cardiologist were low (approximately 6%) and did not differ between groups.

Conclusion: The AH-HA tool was effective at promoting CVH discussions during routine follow-up care for survivors and recommendations to consult primary care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Journal of Clinical Oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
41.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
8215
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Oncology serves its readers as the single most credible, authoritative resource for disseminating significant clinical oncology research. In print and in electronic format, JCO strives to publish the highest quality articles dedicated to clinical research. Original Reports remain the focus of JCO, but this scientific communication is enhanced by appropriately selected Editorials, Commentaries, Reviews, and other work that relate to the care of patients with cancer.
期刊最新文献
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Randomized Trial on Survival Evaluation (HORSE; MITO-18). Effectiveness of a Cardiovascular Health Electronic Health Record Application for Cancer Survivors in Community Oncology Practice: Results From WF-1804CD. US Food and Drug Administration's Directive to Deal With Delayed Confirmatory Trials: Lessons From Pralatrexate and Belinostat for T-Cell Lymphoma. Improving Access to Patient-Focused, Decentralized Clinical Trials Requires Streamlined Regulatory Requirements: An ASCO Research Statement. First-Line Nivolumab Plus Relatlimab Versus Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma: An Indirect Treatment Comparison Using RELATIVITY-047 and CheckMate 067 Trial Data.
×
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