Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Study protocol

PATIENT VOICES, a project for the integration of the systematic assessment of patient reported outcomes and experiences within a comprehensive cancer center: a protocol for a mixed method feasibility study

Authors: Cinzia Brunelli, Claudia Borreani, Augusto Caraceni, Anna Roli, Marco Bellazzi, Linda Lombi, Emanuela Zito, Chiara Pellegrini, Pierangelo Spada, Stein Kaasa, Anna Maria Foschi, Giovanni Apolone, on behalf of the PATIENT VOICES study group

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Listening to “patient voices” in terms of symptoms, emotional status and experiences with care, is crucial for patient empowerment in clinical practice. Despite convincing evidence that routine patient reported outcomes and experience measurements (PRMs) with rapid feed-back to oncologists can improve symptom control, patient well-being and cost effectiveness, PRMs are not commonly used in cancer care, due to barriers at various level. Part of these barriers may be overcome through electronic PRMs collection (ePRMs) integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR). The PATIENT VOICES initiative is aimed at achieving a stepwise integration of ePRMs assessment into routine cancer care. The feasibility project presented here is aimed at assessing the knowledge, use and attitudes toward PRMs in a comprehensive cancer centre; developing and assessing feasibility of a flexible system for ePRM assessment; identifying barriers to and developing strategies for implementation and integration of ePRMs clinical practice.

Methods

The project has been organized into four phases: a) pre-development; b) software development and piloting; c) feasibility assessment; d) post-development. A convergent mixed method design, based on concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection will be applied. A web-survey on health care providers (HCPs), qualitative studies on patients and HCPs (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional quantitative studies will be carried out. The quantitative studies will enroll 600 patients: 200 attending out-patient clinics (physical symptom assessement), 200 attending inpatient wards (psychological distress assessment) and 200 patients followed by multidisciplinary teams (patient experience with care assessment). The Edmonton symptom assessment scale, the Distress Thermometer, and a tool adapted from existing patient reported experience with cancer care questionnaires, will be used in quantitative studies. A multi-disciplinary stakeholder team including researchers, clinicians, health informatics professionals, health system administrators and patients will be involved in the development of potentially effective implementation strategies in the post development phase.

Discussion

The documentation of potential advantages and implementation barriers achieved within this feasibility project, will serve as a starting point for future and more focused interventions aimed at achieving effective ePRMs routine assessment in cancer care.

Trial registration

Literature
1.
go back to reference Stiggelbout AM, Van der Weijden T, De Wit MP, Frosch D, Légaré F, Montori VM, et al. Shared decision making: really putting patients at the Centre of healthcare. BMJ. 2012;344:e256. Stiggelbout AM, Van der Weijden T, De Wit MP, Frosch D, Légaré F, Montori VM, et al. Shared decision making: really putting patients at the Centre of healthcare. BMJ. 2012;344:e256.
2.
go back to reference US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:1–20. US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:1–20.
3.
go back to reference Desomer A, Heede K, Triemstra M, Paget J, Boer Dd, Kohn L, et al. Use of patient-reported outcome and experience measures in patient care and policy. 2018. Desomer A, Heede K, Triemstra M, Paget J, Boer Dd, Kohn L, et al. Use of patient-reported outcome and experience measures in patient care and policy. 2018.
4.
go back to reference Beattie M, Murphy DJ, Atherton I, Lauder W. Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):97.PubMedPubMedCentral Beattie M, Murphy DJ, Atherton I, Lauder W. Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):97.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, Harrow A, Di Domenico D, Croy S, et al. 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. 2014;32(14):1480–501.PubMed Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, Harrow A, Di Domenico D, Croy S, et al. 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. 2014;32(14):1480–501.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):115–23.PubMed Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):115–23.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Basch E. Patient-reported outcomes—harnessing patients’ voices to improve clinical care. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(2):105–8.PubMed Basch E. Patient-reported outcomes—harnessing patients’ voices to improve clinical care. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(2):105–8.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Kaasa S, Loge JH, Aapro M, Albreht T, Anderson R, Bruera E, et al. Integration of oncology and palliative care: a lancet oncology commission. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(11):e588–653.PubMed Kaasa S, Loge JH, Aapro M, Albreht T, Anderson R, Bruera E, et al. Integration of oncology and palliative care: a lancet oncology commission. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(11):e588–653.PubMed
9.
go back to reference 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.PubMedPubMedCentral 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.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Denis F, Lethrosne C, Pourel N, Molinier O, Pointreau Y, Domont J, et al. Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(9):djx029. Denis F, Lethrosne C, Pourel N, Molinier O, Pointreau Y, Domont J, et al. Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(9):djx029.
11.
go back to reference Lizée T, Basch E, Trémolières P, Voog E, Domont J, Peyraga G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of web-based patient-reported outcome surveillance in patients with lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(6):1012–20.PubMed Lizée T, Basch E, Trémolières P, Voog E, Domont J, Peyraga G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of web-based patient-reported outcome surveillance in patients with lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(6):1012–20.PubMed
12.
go back to reference 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.PubMed 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.PubMed
13.
go back to reference 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 Aff. 2013;32(2):223–31. 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 Aff. 2013;32(2):223–31.
14.
go back to reference Shortell SM, Poon BY, Ramsay PP, Rodriguez HP, Ivey SL, Huber T, et al. A multilevel analysis of patient engagement and patient-reported outcomes in primary care practices of accountable care organizations. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(6):640–7.PubMedPubMedCentral Shortell SM, Poon BY, Ramsay PP, Rodriguez HP, Ivey SL, Huber T, et al. A multilevel analysis of patient engagement and patient-reported outcomes in primary care practices of accountable care organizations. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(6):640–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Stover AM, Stricker CT, Hammelef K, Henson S, Carr P, Jansen J, et al. Using stakeholder engagement to overcome barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in Cancer care delivery: approaches from 3 prospective studies. Med Care. 2019;57:S92–9.PubMed Stover AM, Stricker CT, Hammelef K, Henson S, Carr P, Jansen J, et al. Using stakeholder engagement to overcome barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in Cancer care delivery: approaches from 3 prospective studies. Med Care. 2019;57:S92–9.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Basch E, Abernethy AP. Supporting clinical practice decisions with real-time patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):954–6.PubMed Basch E, Abernethy AP. Supporting clinical practice decisions with real-time patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):954–6.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Jensen RE, Snyder CF, Abernethy AP, Basch E, Potosky AL, Roberts AC, et al. Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. J Oncol Pract. 2013;10(4):e215–22.PubMedPubMedCentral Jensen RE, Snyder CF, Abernethy AP, Basch E, Potosky AL, Roberts AC, et al. Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. J Oncol Pract. 2013;10(4):e215–22.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Basch E. Missing patients’ symptoms in cancer care delivery—the importance of patient-reported outcomes. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(4):433–4.PubMed Basch E. Missing patients’ symptoms in cancer care delivery—the importance of patient-reported outcomes. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(4):433–4.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Morse JM. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nurs Res. 1991;40(2):120–3.PubMed Morse JM. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nurs Res. 1991;40(2):120–3.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Cresswell J, Plano CV. Designing and conducting mixed method research, vol. 201. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011. Cresswell J, Plano CV. Designing and conducting mixed method research, vol. 201. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011.
21.
go back to reference Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Bala H. Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q. 2013;37(1):21–54. Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Bala H. Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q. 2013;37(1):21–54.
22.
go back to reference McPeake J, Bateson M, O’Neill A. Electronic surveys: how to maximise success. Nurs Res. 2014;21(3):24–6. McPeake J, Bateson M, O’Neill A. Electronic surveys: how to maximise success. Nurs Res. 2014;21(3):24–6.
23.
go back to reference Machin D, Campbell M, Fayers P, Pinol A. Sample size tables for clinical studies. 1997, vol. 2. Malden: Blackwell Science; 1997. Machin D, Campbell M, Fayers P, Pinol A. Sample size tables for clinical studies. 1997, vol. 2. Malden: Blackwell Science; 1997.
24.
go back to reference Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):32.PubMedPubMedCentral Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):32.PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.PubMed Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.PubMed
26.
go back to reference Krogstad H, Brunelli C, Sand K, Andersen E, Garresori H, Halvorsen T, et al. Development of EirV3: a computer-based tool for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2017;1:1–14.PubMed Krogstad H, Brunelli C, Sand K, Andersen E, Garresori H, Halvorsen T, et al. Development of EirV3: a computer-based tool for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2017;1:1–14.PubMed
27.
go back to reference Bantug ET, Coles T, Smith KC, Snyder CF, Rouette J, Brundage MD. Graphical displays of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for use in clinical practice: what makes a pro picture worth a thousand words? Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(4):483–90.PubMed Bantug ET, Coles T, Smith KC, Snyder CF, Rouette J, Brundage MD. Graphical displays of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for use in clinical practice: what makes a pro picture worth a thousand words? Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(4):483–90.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Yang L, Manhas D, Howard A, Olson R. Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26(1):41–60.PubMed Yang L, Manhas D, Howard A, Olson R. Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26(1):41–60.PubMed
29.
go back to reference Cleeland CS, Zhao F, Chang VT, Sloan JA, O'mara AM, Gilman PB, et al. The symptom burden of cancer: evidence for a core set of cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms from the eastern cooperative oncology group symptom outcomes and practice patterns study. Cancer. 2013;119(24):4333–40.PubMed Cleeland CS, Zhao F, Chang VT, Sloan JA, O'mara AM, Gilman PB, et al. The symptom burden of cancer: evidence for a core set of cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms from the eastern cooperative oncology group symptom outcomes and practice patterns study. Cancer. 2013;119(24):4333–40.PubMed
30.
go back to reference Bultz BD, Holland JC. Emotional distress in patients with cancer: the sixth vital sign. Commun Oncol. 2006;3(5):311–4. Bultz BD, Holland JC. Emotional distress in patients with cancer: the sixth vital sign. Commun Oncol. 2006;3(5):311–4.
31.
go back to reference Asadi-Lari M, Tamburini M, Gray D. Patients' needs, satisfaction, and health related quality of life: towards a comprehensive model. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:32 7525-2-32.PubMedPubMedCentral Asadi-Lari M, Tamburini M, Gray D. Patients' needs, satisfaction, and health related quality of life: towards a comprehensive model. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:32 7525-2-32.PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Arora NK. Can you hear me now? Importance of assessing patients’ Cancer care experiences. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(8):515–8.PubMed Arora NK. Can you hear me now? Importance of assessing patients’ Cancer care experiences. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(8):515–8.PubMed
33.
go back to reference Nekolaichuk C, Watanabe S, Beaumont C. The Edmonton symptom assessment system: a 15-year retrospective review of validation studies (1991–2006). Palliat Med. 2008;22(2):111–22.PubMed Nekolaichuk C, Watanabe S, Beaumont C. The Edmonton symptom assessment system: a 15-year retrospective review of validation studies (1991–2006). Palliat Med. 2008;22(2):111–22.PubMed
34.
go back to reference Aktas A, Walsh D, Kirkova J. The psychometric properties of cancer multisymptom assessment instruments: a clinical review. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(7):2189–202.PubMed Aktas A, Walsh D, Kirkova J. The psychometric properties of cancer multisymptom assessment instruments: a clinical review. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(7):2189–202.PubMed
35.
go back to reference Moro C, Brunelli C, Miccinesi G, Fallai M, Morino P, Piazza M, et al. Edmonton symptom assessment scale: Italian validation in two palliative care settings. Support Care Cancer. 2006;14(1):30–7.PubMed Moro C, Brunelli C, Miccinesi G, Fallai M, Morino P, Piazza M, et al. Edmonton symptom assessment scale: Italian validation in two palliative care settings. Support Care Cancer. 2006;14(1):30–7.PubMed
36.
go back to reference Roth AJ, Kornblith AB, Batel-Copel L, Peabody E, Scher HI, Holland JC. Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. Cancer. 1998;82(10):1904–8.PubMed Roth AJ, Kornblith AB, Batel-Copel L, Peabody E, Scher HI, Holland JC. Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. Cancer. 1998;82(10):1904–8.PubMed
37.
go back to reference Grassi L, Sabato S, Rossi E, Marmai L, Biancosino B. Affective syndromes and their screening in cancer patients with early and stable disease: Italian ICD-10 data and performance of the distress thermometer from the southern European psycho-oncology study (SEPOS). J Affect Disord. 2009;114(1):193–9.PubMed Grassi L, Sabato S, Rossi E, Marmai L, Biancosino B. Affective syndromes and their screening in cancer patients with early and stable disease: Italian ICD-10 data and performance of the distress thermometer from the southern European psycho-oncology study (SEPOS). J Affect Disord. 2009;114(1):193–9.PubMed
38.
go back to reference Wind A, Roeling MP, Heerink J, Sixma H, Presti P, Lombardo C, et al. Piloting a generic cancer consumer quality index in six European countries. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):711.PubMedPubMedCentral Wind A, Roeling MP, Heerink J, Sixma H, Presti P, Lombardo C, et al. Piloting a generic cancer consumer quality index in six European countries. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):711.PubMedPubMedCentral
39.
go back to reference Jean-Pierre P, Fiscella K, Freund KM, Clark J, Darnell J, Holden A, et al. Structural and reliability analysis of a patient satisfaction with cancer-related care measure: a multisite patient navigation research program study. Cancer. 2011;117(4):854–61.PubMed Jean-Pierre P, Fiscella K, Freund KM, Clark J, Darnell J, Holden A, et al. Structural and reliability analysis of a patient satisfaction with cancer-related care measure: a multisite patient navigation research program study. Cancer. 2011;117(4):854–61.PubMed
40.
go back to reference Sandelowski M. One is the liveliest number: the case orientation of qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1996;19(6):525–9.PubMed Sandelowski M. One is the liveliest number: the case orientation of qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1996;19(6):525–9.PubMed
41.
go back to reference Bloor MF, Thomas J, Robson MK. Focus groups in social research; 2001. Bloor MF, Thomas J, Robson MK. Focus groups in social research; 2001.
42.
go back to reference Foster A, Croot L, Brazier J, Harris J, O’Cathain A. The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):46.PubMedPubMedCentral Foster A, Croot L, Brazier J, Harris J, O’Cathain A. The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):46.PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
go back to reference Calvert M, Thwaites R, Kyte D, Devlin N. Putting patient-reported outcomes on the ‘big data road map’. J R Soc Med. 2015;108(8):299–303.PubMedPubMedCentral Calvert M, Thwaites R, Kyte D, Devlin N. Putting patient-reported outcomes on the ‘big data road map’. J R Soc Med. 2015;108(8):299–303.PubMedPubMedCentral
44.
go back to reference Anatchkova M, Donelson SM, Skalicky AM, McHorney CA, Jagun D, Whiteley J. 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 Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):64.PubMedPubMedCentral Anatchkova M, Donelson SM, Skalicky AM, McHorney CA, Jagun D, Whiteley J. 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 Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):64.PubMedPubMedCentral
45.
go back to reference Tamburini M. Health-related quality of life measures in cancer. Ann Oncol. 2001;12(suppl_3):S7–S10.PubMed Tamburini M. Health-related quality of life measures in cancer. Ann Oncol. 2001;12(suppl_3):S7–S10.PubMed
Metadata
Title
PATIENT VOICES, a project for the integration of the systematic assessment of patient reported outcomes and experiences within a comprehensive cancer center: a protocol for a mixed method feasibility study
Authors
Cinzia Brunelli
Claudia Borreani
Augusto Caraceni
Anna Roli
Marco Bellazzi
Linda Lombi
Emanuela Zito
Chiara Pellegrini
Pierangelo Spada
Stein Kaasa
Anna Maria Foschi
Giovanni Apolone
on behalf of the PATIENT VOICES study group
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01501-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2020 Go to the issue