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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |