Cargando…

A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology

BACKGROUND: Clinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients' concerns not being addressed. This study's objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern du...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Warsame, Rahma, Cook, Joselle, Fruth, Briant, Hubbard, Joleen, Croghan, Katrina, Price, Katharine A.R., Jatoi, Aminah, Kumar, Shaji, Thompson, Carrie, Buckner, Jan, Dispenzieri, Angela, Sloan, Jeff, Dueck, Amylou C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9344350/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35928285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100964
_version_ 1784761202295963648
author Warsame, Rahma
Cook, Joselle
Fruth, Briant
Hubbard, Joleen
Croghan, Katrina
Price, Katharine A.R.
Jatoi, Aminah
Kumar, Shaji
Thompson, Carrie
Buckner, Jan
Dispenzieri, Angela
Sloan, Jeff
Dueck, Amylou C.
author_facet Warsame, Rahma
Cook, Joselle
Fruth, Briant
Hubbard, Joleen
Croghan, Katrina
Price, Katharine A.R.
Jatoi, Aminah
Kumar, Shaji
Thompson, Carrie
Buckner, Jan
Dispenzieri, Angela
Sloan, Jeff
Dueck, Amylou C.
author_sort Warsame, Rahma
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients' concerns not being addressed. This study's objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern during clinic visits improves cancer patient quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a “was it worth it” survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups. RESULTS: Overall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31–87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0–10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Although we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9344350
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93443502022-08-03 A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology Warsame, Rahma Cook, Joselle Fruth, Briant Hubbard, Joleen Croghan, Katrina Price, Katharine A.R. Jatoi, Aminah Kumar, Shaji Thompson, Carrie Buckner, Jan Dispenzieri, Angela Sloan, Jeff Dueck, Amylou C. Contemp Clin Trials Commun Article BACKGROUND: Clinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients' concerns not being addressed. This study's objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern during clinic visits improves cancer patient quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a “was it worth it” survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups. RESULTS: Overall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31–87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0–10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Although we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians. Elsevier 2022-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9344350/ /pubmed/35928285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100964 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Warsame, Rahma
Cook, Joselle
Fruth, Briant
Hubbard, Joleen
Croghan, Katrina
Price, Katharine A.R.
Jatoi, Aminah
Kumar, Shaji
Thompson, Carrie
Buckner, Jan
Dispenzieri, Angela
Sloan, Jeff
Dueck, Amylou C.
A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology
title A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology
title_full A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology
title_fullStr A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology
title_full_unstemmed A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology
title_short A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology
title_sort prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9344350/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35928285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100964
work_keys_str_mv AT warsamerahma aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT cookjoselle aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT fruthbriant aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT hubbardjoleen aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT croghankatrina aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT pricekatharinear aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT jatoiaminah aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT kumarshaji aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT thompsoncarrie aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT bucknerjan aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT dispenzieriangela aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT sloanjeff aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT dueckamylouc aprospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT warsamerahma prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT cookjoselle prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT fruthbriant prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT hubbardjoleen prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT croghankatrina prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT pricekatharinear prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT jatoiaminah prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT kumarshaji prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT thompsoncarrie prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT bucknerjan prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT dispenzieriangela prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT sloanjeff prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology
AT dueckamylouc prospectiverandomizedtrialofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurestodrivemanagementdecisionsinhematologyandoncology