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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2022

01-12-2022 | Cytostatic Therapy | Study protocol

Implementation of patient-reported outcomes for symptom management in oncology practice through the SIMPRO research consortium: a protocol for a pragmatic type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation multi-center cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial

Authors: Michael J. Hassett, Sandra Wong, Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, Jessica Bian, Don S. Dizon, Hannah Hazard Jenkins, Hajime Uno, Christine Cronin, Deborah Schrag, SIMPRO Co-Investigators

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Many cancer patients experience high symptom burden. Healthcare in the USA is reactive, not proactive, and doctor-patient communication is often suboptimal. As a result, symptomatic patients may suffer between clinic visits. In research settings, systematic assessment of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), coupled with clinical responses to severe symptoms, has eased this symptom burden, improved health-related quality of life, reduced acute care needs, and extended survival. Implementing ePRO-based symptom management programs in routine care is challenging. To study methods to overcome the implementation gap and improve symptom control for cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute created the Cancer-Moonshot funded Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium.

Methods

Symptom Management IMplementation of Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology (SIMPRO) is one of three research centers that make up the IMPACT Consortium. SIMPRO, a multi-disciplinary team of investigators from six US health systems, seeks to develop, test, and integrate an electronic symptom management program (eSyM) for medical oncology and surgery patients into the Epic electronic health record (EHR) system and associated patient portal. eSyM supports real-time symptom tracking for patients, automated clinician alerts for severe symptoms, and specialized reports to facilitate population management. To rigorously evaluate its impact, eSyM is deployed through a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial. The primary study outcome is the occurrence of an emergency department treat-and-release event within 30 days of starting chemotherapy or being discharged following surgery. Secondary outcomes include hospitalization rates, chemotherapy use (time to initiation and duration of therapy), and patient quality of life and satisfaction. As a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation study, facilitators and barriers to implementation are assessed throughout the project.

Discussion

Creating and deploying eSyM requires collaboration between dozens of staff across diverse health systems, dedicated engagement of patient advocates, and robust support from Epic. This trial will evaluate eSyM in routine care settings across academic and community-based healthcare systems serving patients in rural and metropolitan locations. This trial’s pragmatic design will promote generalizable results about the uptake, acceptability, and impact of an EHR-integrated, ePRO-based symptom management program.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03850912. Registered on February 22, 2019. Last updated on November 9, 2021.
Literature
1.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Cleeland CS. Symptom burden: multiple symptoms and their impact as patient-reported outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2007;37:16–21.CrossRef
4.
Hofman M, Ryan JL, Figueroa-Moseley CD, Jean-Pierre P, Morrow GR. Cancer-related fatigue: the scale of the problem. Oncologist. 2007;12(Suppl 1):4–10.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Teunissen SC, Wesker W, Kruitwagen C, de Haes HC, Voest EE, de Graeff A. Symptom prevalence in patients with incurable cancer: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2007;34(1):94–104.CrossRef
6.
Temel JS, Pirl WF, Lynch TJ. Comprehensive symptom management in patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2006;7(4):241–9.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Mayer DK, Travers D, Wyss A, Leak A, Waller A. Why do patients with cancer visit emergency departments? Results of a 2008 population study in North Carolina. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(19):2683–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Brooks GA, Abrams TA, Meyerhardt JA, Enzinger PC, Sommer K, Dalby CK, et al. Identification of potentially avoidable hospitalizations in patients with GI cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(6):496–503.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
10.
Berry DL, Blonquist TM, Hong F, Halpenny B, Partridge AH. Self-reported adherence to oral cancer therapy: relationships with symptom distress, depression, and personal characteristics. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:1587–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Fish JA, Prichard I, Ettridge K, Grunfeld EA, Wilson C. Psychosocial factors that influence men’s help-seeking for cancer symptoms: a systematic synthesis of mixed methods research. Psychooncology. 2015;24(10):1222–32.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Cohen E, Botti M. Cancer patients’ perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to patient participation in symptom management during an episode of admission. Cancer Nurs. 2015;38(6):458–65.PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
15.
Birkhoff SD, Smeltzer SC. Perceptions of smartphone user-centered mobile health tracking apps across various chronic illness populations: an integrative review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2017;49(4):371–8.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Carroll JK, Moorhead A, Bond R, LeBlanc WG, Petrella RJ, Fiscella K. Who uses mobile phone health apps and does use matter? A secondary data analytics approach. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(4):e125.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Ernsting C, Dombrowski SU, Oedekoven M, Sullivan JLO, Kanzler M, Kuhlmey A, et al. Using smartphones and health apps to change and manage health behaviors: a population-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(4):e101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Koh HK, Brach C, Harris LM, Parchman ML. A proposed ‘health literate care model’ would constitute a systems approach to improving patients’ engagement in care. Health affairs (Project Hope). 2013;32(2):357–67.CrossRef
19.
Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, Sofaer S, Adams K, Bechtel C, et al. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health affairs (Project Hope). 2013;32(2):223–31.CrossRef
20.
Hibbard JH, Mahoney E. Toward a theory of patient and consumer activation. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(3):377–81.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Coulter A, Ellins J. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2007;335(7609):24–7.CrossRef
22.
Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol Assoc. 1982;37(2):122–47.CrossRef
23.
Strecher VJ, DeVellis BM, Becker MH, Rosenstock IM. The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Educ Q. 1986;13(1):73–92.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Coleman K, Austin BT, Brach C, Wagner EH. Evidence on the chronic care model in the new millennium. Health affairs (Project Hope). 2009;28(1):75–85.CrossRef
25.
26.
Manary MP, Boulding W, Staelin R, Glickman SW. The patient experience and health outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(3):201–3.PubMedCrossRef
27.
McCabe C, McCann M, Brady AM. Computer and mobile technology interventions for self-management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;5:CD011425.PubMed
28.
Posadzki P, Mastellos N, Ryan R, Gunn LH, Felix LM, Pappas Y, et al. Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;12:CD009921.PubMed
29.
Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(6):557–65.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Snyder CF, Blackford AL, Aaronson NK, Detmar SB, Carducci MA, Brundage MD, et al. Can patient-reported outcome measures identify cancer patients’ most bothersome issues? J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(9):1216–20.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Abelson JS, Symer M, Peters A, Charlson M, Yeo H. Mobile health apps and recovery after surgery: what are patients willing to do? Am J Surg. 2017;214(4):616–22.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, Scher HI, Kris MG, Hudis C, et al. Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. Jama. 2017;318(2):197–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
McCorkle R, Ercolano E, Lazenby M, Schulman-Green D, Schilling LS, Lorig K, et al. Self-management: enabling and empowering patients living with cancer as a chronic illness. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(1):50–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Fisch MJ, Chung AE, Accordino MK. Using technology to improve cancer care: social media, wearables, and electronic health records. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:200–8.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Mobasheri MH, Johnston M, Syed UM, King D, Darzi A. The uses of smartphones and tablet devices in surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Surgery. 2015;158(5):1352–71.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Basch E, Snyder C, McNiff K, Brown R, Maddux S, Smith ML, et al. Patient-reported outcome performance measures in oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(3):209–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Snyder CF. Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a promising approach? J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(11):1099–100.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Roess A. The promise, growth, and reality of mobile health - another data-free zone. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(21):2010–1.PubMedCrossRef
39.
40.
41.
Hassett MJ, Schrag D, Osarogiagbon R, Wong S, Kroner B, Cella D, Cheville A, Norton W, Mitchell S, Jensen R, Jacobsen P, Wilder Smith A. IMPACT Consortium. National Cancer Institute 2018.
42.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
44.
Hassett MJ, Cronin C, Tsou TC, Wedge J, Bian J, Dizon DS, et al. eSyM: an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported outcomes-based cancer symptom management program used by six diverse health systems. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2022;6:e2100137.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Hemming K, Haines TP, Chilton PJ, Girling AJ, Lilford RJ. The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: rationale, design, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2015;350:h391.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Hemming K, Taljaard M. Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:137–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Eldridge SM, Costelloe CE, Kahan BC, Lancaster GA, Kerry SM. How big should the pilot study for my cluster randomised trial be? Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25(3):1039–56.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Campbell MK, Mollison J, Grimshaw JM. Cluster trials in implementation research: estimation of intracluster correlation coefficients and sample size. Stat Med. 2001;20(3):391–9.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Yost KJ, Eton DT, Garcia SF, Cella D. Minimally important differences were estimated for six patient-reported outcomes measurement information system-cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(5):507–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Chen CX, Kroenke K, Stump TE, Kean J, Carpenter JS, Krebs EE, et al. Estimating minimally important differences for the PROMIS pain interference scales: results from 3 randomized clinical trials. Pain. 2018;159(4):775–82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Cella D, Lai J, Garcia SF, Reeve BB, Weinfurt KP, George J, et al. The patient reported outcomes measurement information system—cancer (PROMIS-Ca): cancer-specific application of a generic fatigue measure. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(15_suppl):6537.CrossRef
53.
54.
55.
Evensen CT, Yost KJ, Keller S, Arora NK, Frentzel E, Cowans T, et al. Development and testing of the CAHPS cancer care survey. J Oncol Pract. 2019;15(11):e969–e78.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Boserup B, McKenney M, Elkbuli A. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department visits and patient safety in the United States. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38(9):1732–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Metadata
Title
Implementation of patient-reported outcomes for symptom management in oncology practice through the SIMPRO research consortium: a protocol for a pragmatic type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation multi-center cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial
Authors
Michael J. Hassett
Sandra Wong
Raymond U. Osarogiagbon
Jessica Bian
Don S. Dizon
Hannah Hazard Jenkins
Hajime Uno
Christine Cronin
Deborah Schrag
SIMPRO Co-Investigators
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06435-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue

Study protocol

A deprescribing medication program to evaluate falls in older adults: methods for a randomized pragmatic clinical trial

Study protocol

SHIFTPLAN: a randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of a multimodal shift-work intervention on drivers’ fatigue, sleep, health, and performance parameters.

Study protocol

The CORE-KDT study: a mixed methods protocol to establish core outcomes for refractory childhood epilepsy treated with ketogenic diet therapy

Methodology

Trial Forge Guidance 3: randomised trials and how to recruit and retain individuals from ethnic minority groups—practical guidance to support better practice

Study protocol

Ultrasound-guided, continuous erector spinae plane (ESP) block in minimally invasive thoracic surgery—comparing programmed intermittent bolus (PIB) vs continuous infusion on quality of recovery and postoperative respiratory function: a double-blinded randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Protocol for an attention-matched randomized controlled trial of 2GETHER: a relationship education and HIV prevention program for young male couples