Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2020

01-10-2020 | Antidepressant Drugs | Original Article

Integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for personalized symptom management in “real-world” oncology practices: a population-based cohort comparison study of impact on healthcare utilization

Authors: Doris Howell, Madeline Li, Rinku Sutradhar, Sumei Gu, Javaid Iqbal, Mary Ann O’Brien, Hsien Seow, Deborah Dudgeon, Clare Atzema, Craig C. Earle, Carlo DeAngelis, Jonathan Sussman, Lisa Barbera

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 10/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for routine cancer distress screening is endorsed globally as a quality-care standard. However, there is little research on the integration of PROs in “real-world” oncology practices using implementation science methods. The Improving Patient Experience and Health Outcome Collaborative (iPEHOC) intervention was established at multisite disease clinics to facilitate the use of PRO data by clinicians for precision symptom care. The aim of this study was to examine if patients exposed to the intervention differed in their healthcare utilization compared with contemporaneous controls in the same time frame.

Methods

We used a PRE- and DURING-intervention population cohort comparison study design to estimate the effects of the iPEHOC intervention on the difference in difference (DID) for relative rates (RR) for emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, psychosocial oncology (PSO), palliative care visits, and prescription rates for opioids and antidepressants compared with controls.

Results

A small significantly lower Difference in Difference (DID) (− 0.223) in the RR for ED visits was noted for the intervention compared with controls over time (0.947, CI 0.900–0.996); and a DID (− 0.0329) for patients meeting ESAS symptom thresholds (0.927, CI 0.869–0.990). A lower DID in palliative care visits (− 0.0097), psychosocial oncology visits (− 0.0248), antidepressant prescriptions (− 0.0260) and an increase in opioid prescriptions (0.0456) in the exposed population compared with controls was also noted. A similar pattern was shown for ESAS as a secondary exposure variable.

Conclusion

Facilitating uptake of PROs data may impact healthcare utilization but requires examination in larger scale “real-world” trials.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Holland J, Watson M, Dunn J (2011) The IPOS new international standard of quality Cancer care: integrating the psychosocial domain into routine cancer care. Psycho-Oncology 20:677–680CrossRef
2.
Alemayehu D, Cappelleri JC (2012) Conceptual and analytic considerations toward the use of patient-reported outcomes in personalized medicine. Am Health Drug Benefits 5(5):310–317PubMedPubMedCentral
3.
4.
Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ (2013) A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organizations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res 11(13):211CrossRef
5.
Yang L, Manhas D, Howard A et al (2014) Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Support Care Cancer 26:41–60CrossRef
6.
Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, Harrow A, di Domenico D, Croy S, MacGillivray S (2014) What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 32(14):1480–1501CrossRef
7.
Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, Scher HI, Kris MG, Hudis C, Schrag D (2017) Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 318:197–198CrossRef
8.
Denis F, Lethrosne C, Pourel N et al (2017) Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 109:1460–2105CrossRef
9.
Stover A, Irwin DE, Chen RC et al (2015) Integrating patient-reported measures into routine cancer care: cancer patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of acceptability and value. EGEMS The Electronic Journal for Electronic Health Data and Methods (Wash DC) 3(1):1169. https://​doi.​org/​10.​13063/​2327-9214.​1169
10.
Anachkova M, Donelson S, Ska Licks AM et al (2018) Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more ‘real-world’ evidence results in the peer reviewed literature. J Patient-Reported Outcomes 2(64):1–21
11.
Howell D, Hack TF, Green E, Fitch M (2014) Cancer distress screening data: translating knowledge into clinical action for a quality response. Palliat Supp Care 12(1):39–51CrossRef
12.
Mitchell S, Chambers D (2017) Leveraging implementation science to improve cancer care delivery and patient outcomes. JOP 13(8):523–539CrossRef
13.
Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R (2005) The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical care: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med 60:833–843CrossRef
14.
Li M, Macedo L, Crawford S et al (2016) Easier said than done: keys to successful implementation of the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART) program. JOP 2(5):e513–e526CrossRef
15.
Howell D, Molloy S, Wilkinson K, Green E, Orchard K, Wang K, Liberty J (2015) Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol 26(9):1846–1858CrossRef
16.
Santana MJ, Haverman L, Absolom K (2015) Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Qual Life Res 24(7):1701–1718CrossRef
17.
Pereira J, Green E, Molloy S et al (2014) Population-based standardized symptom screening: Cancer Care Ontario’s Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and performance status initiatives. JOP 10(3):212–214CrossRef
18.
Seow H, Sussman J, Martelli-Reid L et al (2012) Do high symptom scores trigger clinical actions? An audit after implementing electronic symptom screening. JOP 8(6):e142–e148CrossRef
19.
Graham I, Logan J, Harrison M, Straus S, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N (2006) Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Heal Prof 26:3–24CrossRef
20.
Hiatt JM (2006) ADKAR: a model for change in business, government and our community. Prosci Learning Center Publications, Loveland
21.
Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A, Boyko J, Urquart R (2016) Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implement Sci 17(11):38
22.
Thomson O’Brien MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB et al (2000) Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD003030
23.
Miech EJ, Rattray NA, Flanagan ME, Damschroeder L, Schmid AA, Damush TM (2018) Inside help: an integrative review of champions in healthcare-related implementation. SAGE Open Med 6:1–11CrossRef
24.
Stewart M, Brown JB, Weston WW, McWhinney IR, McMillan CI, Freeman TR (2014) Patient-centered medicine: transforming the clinical method. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton
25.
26.
Watanbe SM, Nekolaichuk C, Beaumont C et al (2011) A multicenter study comparing to numerical versions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System in palliative care patients. J Pain Symptom Manag 41:456–468CrossRef
27.
Dudgeon D, King S, Howell D, Green E, Gilbert J, Hughes E, Lalonde B, Angus H, Sawka C (2011) Cancer Care Ontario’s experience with implementation of routine physical and psychological symptom distress screening. Psychooncology 21(4):357–364CrossRef
28.
Gilbert J, Howell D, King S, Sawka C, Hughes E, Angus H, Dudgeon D (2012) Quality improvement in cancer symptom assessment and control: the provincial palliative care integration project (PPCIP). J Pain Symptom Manag 43(4):663–678CrossRef
29.
Daut RL, Cleeland CS, Flanery RC (1983) Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain 17:197–210CrossRef
30.
Okuyama T, Akechi T, Kugaya A, Okamura H, Shima Y, Maruguchi M, Hosaka T, Uchitomi Y (2000) Development and validation of the cancer fatigue scale: a brief, three-dimensional, self-rating scale for assessment of fatigue in cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manag 19(1):5–14CrossRef
31.
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Lowe B (2006) A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 166(10):1092–1097CrossRef
32.
Kroenke K, Spitzer R, Williams W (2001) The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. JGIM 16:606–616CrossRef
33.
Bultz BD, Groff SL, Fitch M, Blais MC, Howes J, Levy K, Mayer C (2011) Implementing screening for distress, the 6th vital sign: a Canadian strategy for changing practice. Psycho-Oncology 28:463–469CrossRef
34.
Wright EP, Kiely M, Johnston C, Smith AB, Cull A, Selby PJ (2005) Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice. Qual Life Res 14:373–386CrossRef
35.
Selby D, Chakraborty A, Myers J, Saskin R, Mazzotta P, Gill A (2011) High scores on the Edmonton symptom assessment scale identify patients with self-defined high symptom burden. J Palliat Med 14:1309–1316CrossRef
36.
Oldenmenger WH, de Raaf PJ, de Klerk C, van der Rijt CC (2013) Cut points on 0-10 numeric rating scales for symptoms included in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in cancer patients: a systematic review. J Pain Symp Manage 45(5):1083–1093CrossRef
37.
Bagha SM, Macedo A, Jacks LM, Lo C, Zimmermann C, Rodin G, Li M (2013) The utility of the Edmonton symptom assessment system in screening for anxiety and depression. Eur J Cancer Care 22(1):60–69CrossRef
38.
Iron K, Zagorski BM, Sykora K, Manuel DG (2008) Living and dying in ontario: An opportunity for improved health information. ICES investigative report Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
39.
Discharge Abstracts Database of CIHI (DAD) Canadian Institute for Health Information (2012) Data quality documentation, discharge abstract database — current year information. CIHI, Ottawa, ON http://​www.​cihi.​ca. Accessed on April 2016
40.
Canadian Institute for Health Information: CIHI Data Quality Study of Ontario Emergency Department Visits for Fiscal Year 2007, in Ottawa, Ontario, 2007
41.
42.
Cancer Activity Level Reporting (ALR) database. Cancer Care Ontario's Data Book - 2016-2017
43.
Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) Database, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care
44.
Barbera LC, Seow H, Husain A, Howell D et al (2011) How often are opioids prescribed for cancer patients reporting pain? Results of a population-based analysis. JCO 29(15):6084CrossRef
45.
46.
Barbera L, Sutradhar R, Howell D et al (2015) Does routine symptom screening with ESAS decrease ED visits in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy? Support Care Cancer 23:3025–3032CrossRef
47.
Butow P, Price MA, Shaw JM, Turner J, Clayton JM, Grimison P, Rankin N, Kirsten L (2015) Clinical pathway for the screening, assessment and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients: Australian guidelines. Psychooncology 24:987–1001CrossRef
48.
Mittman BS (2004) Creating the evidence base for quality improvement Collaboratives. Ann Int Med 140:897–901CrossRef
49.
Greene J, Hibbard JH (2012) Why does patient activation matter? An examination of the relationships between patient activation and health-related outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 27:520–526CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for personalized symptom management in “real-world” oncology practices: a population-based cohort comparison study of impact on healthcare utilization
Authors
Doris Howell
Madeline Li
Rinku Sutradhar
Sumei Gu
Javaid Iqbal
Mary Ann O’Brien
Hsien Seow
Deborah Dudgeon
Clare Atzema
Craig C. Earle
Carlo DeAngelis
Jonathan Sussman
Lisa Barbera
Publication date
01-10-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05313-3

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2020 Go to the issue

Review Article

Nutrition interventions to improve the appetite of adults undergoing cancer treatment: a systematic review

Original Article

Quality of life and its relation with nutritional status in patients with incurable cancer in palliative care

Original Article

Higher levels of stress and different coping strategies are associated with greater morning and evening fatigue severity in oncology patients receiving chemotherapy

Original Article

Adherence to abiraterone or enzalutamide in elderly metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Original Article

Symptom burden among Northern Alberta radiotherapy patients with advanced cancer: mapping needs and gaps

Letter to the Editor

Comment to: Ryans K et al. Incidence and predictors of axillary web syndrome and its association with lymphedema in women following breast cancer treatment: a retrospective study
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits