BACKGROUND: Automated voice response (AVR) systems have been used to collect patient-reported outcome data. Mode of administration of the assessment may affect patient reporting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if there is a differential reporting of symptoms by the mode of assessment: AVR versus a live telephone interview among cancer patients with solid tumors undergoing chemotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial comparing a nurse-assisted symptom management with an automated telephone symptom management. After completing intake telephone interview administered by a person, patients were randomized to either nurse arm or AVR arm to receive a 6-contact 8-week symptom management intervention. Patients in the nurse arm were called by specially trained nurses, and patients in the AVR arm were contacted via automated system to assess their symptoms and deliver symptom management strategies. SUBJECTS:Two hundred patients in nurse arm, and 186 patients in the AVR arm completed the first intervention contact. MEASURES: Severities of 14 cancer-related symptoms were rated by patients at intake interview and at first intervention contact before the receipt of any interventions. RESULTS: When compared with patients contacted by a nurse, patients contacted by the AVR reported higher severity of nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, poor appetite, constipation, diarrhea, pain, and alopecia controlling for prior intake symptom assessment that was free of mode effect. Symptom reporting varied by age, with the oldest group of patients reporting higher severity to the nurse. CONCLUSION: Mode effect needs to be considered in designing trials for symptom management and in symptom monitoring in clinical practice.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Automated voice response (AVR) systems have been used to collect patient-reported outcome data. Mode of administration of the assessment may affect patient reporting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if there is a differential reporting of symptoms by the mode of assessment: AVR versus a live telephone interview among cancerpatients with solid tumors undergoing chemotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial comparing a nurse-assisted symptom management with an automated telephone symptom management. After completing intake telephone interview administered by a person, patients were randomized to either nurse arm or AVR arm to receive a 6-contact 8-week symptom management intervention. Patients in the nurse arm were called by specially trained nurses, and patients in the AVR arm were contacted via automated system to assess their symptoms and deliver symptom management strategies. SUBJECTS: Two hundred patients in nurse arm, and 186 patients in the AVR arm completed the first intervention contact. MEASURES: Severities of 14 cancer-related symptoms were rated by patients at intake interview and at first intervention contact before the receipt of any interventions. RESULTS: When compared with patients contacted by a nurse, patients contacted by the AVR reported higher severity of nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, poor appetite, constipation, diarrhea, pain, and alopecia controlling for prior intake symptom assessment that was free of mode effect. Symptom reporting varied by age, with the oldest group of patients reporting higher severity to the nurse. CONCLUSION: Mode effect needs to be considered in designing trials for symptom management and in symptom monitoring in clinical practice.
Authors: N J Vogelzang; W Breitbart; D Cella; G A Curt; J E Groopman; S J Horning; L M Itri; D H Johnson; S L Scherr; R K Portenoy Journal: Semin Hematol Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 3.851
Authors: D J Wilkie; H Y Huang; D L Berry; A Schwartz; Y C Lin; N Y Ko; A Chen; J Gralow; S K Lindsley; D Fitzgibbon Journal: Fam Community Health Date: 2001-10
Authors: Diana J Wilkie; M Kay M Judge; Donna L Berry; Jean Dell; Shiping Zong; Rudy Gilespie Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Kay Weiler; Aaron M Christ; George G Woodworth; Rebecca L Weiler; John M Weiler Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Claudia Rutherford; Daniel Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Holly Rice; Liam Gabb; Madeleine King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jordan M Harrison; Philip J Stella; Beth LaVasseur; Paul T Adams; Lauren Swafford; JoAnn Lewis; Kari Mendelsohn-Victor; Christopher R Friese Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Joanne Wolfe; Liliana Orellana; E Francis Cook; Christina Ullrich; Tammy Kang; Jeffrey Russell Geyer; Chris Feudtner; Jane C Weeks; Veronica Dussel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kevin P Shah; Katherine A Baugh; Lisa S Brubaker; George Van Buren; Nicole Villafane-Ferriol; Amy L McElhany; Sadde Mohamed; Eric J Silberfein; Cary Hsu; Nader N Massarweh; Hop S Tran Cao; Jose E Mendez-Reyes; William E Fisher Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Charles William Given; Cathy Bradley; Mei You; Alla Sikorskii; Barbara Given Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Allison Barz Leahy; Lisa A Schwartz; Yimei Li; Bryce B Reeve; Justin E Bekelman; Richard Aplenc; Ethan M Basch Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 6.921