Roxanne E Jensen1, Claire F Snyder2, Amy P Abernethy2, Ethan Basch2, Arnold L Potosky2, Aaron C Roberts2, Deena R Loeffler2, Bryce B Reeve2. 1. Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD; Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; and Health Outcomes Group, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY rj222@georgetown.edu. 2. Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD; Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; and Health Outcomes Group, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) systems is increasing in cancer clinical care settings. This review comprehensively identifies existing PRO systems and explores how systems differ in the administration of PRO assessments, the integration of information into the clinic workflow and electronic health record (EHR) systems, and the reporting of PRO information. METHODS: Electronic PRO (e-PRO) systems were identified through a semistructured review of published studies, gray literature, and expert identification. System developers were contacted to provide detailed e-PRO system characteristics and clinical implementation information using a structured review form. RESULTS: A total of 33 unique systems implemented in cancer clinical practice were identified. Of these, 81% provided detailed information about system characteristics. Two system classifications were established: treatment-centered systems designed for patient monitoring during active cancer treatment (n = 8) and patient-centered systems following patients across treatment and survivorship periods (n = 19). There was little consensus on administration, integration, or result reporting between these system types. Patient-centered systems were more likely to provide user-friendly features such as at-home assessments, integration into larger electronic system networks (eg, EHRs), and more robust score reporting options. Well-established systems were more likely to have features that increased assessment flexibility (eg, location, automated reminders) and better clinical integration. CONCLUSION: The number of e-PRO systems has increased. Systems can be programmed to have numerous features that facilitate integration of PRO assessment and routine monitoring into clinical care. Important barriers to system usability and widespread adoption include assessment flexibility, clinical integration, and high-quality data collection and reporting.
PURPOSE: The use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) systems is increasing in cancer clinical care settings. This review comprehensively identifies existing PRO systems and explores how systems differ in the administration of PRO assessments, the integration of information into the clinic workflow and electronic health record (EHR) systems, and the reporting of PRO information. METHODS: Electronic PRO (e-PRO) systems were identified through a semistructured review of published studies, gray literature, and expert identification. System developers were contacted to provide detailed e-PRO system characteristics and clinical implementation information using a structured review form. RESULTS: A total of 33 unique systems implemented in cancer clinical practice were identified. Of these, 81% provided detailed information about system characteristics. Two system classifications were established: treatment-centered systems designed for patient monitoring during active cancer treatment (n = 8) and patient-centered systems following patients across treatment and survivorship periods (n = 19). There was little consensus on administration, integration, or result reporting between these system types. Patient-centered systems were more likely to provide user-friendly features such as at-home assessments, integration into larger electronic system networks (eg, EHRs), and more robust score reporting options. Well-established systems were more likely to have features that increased assessment flexibility (eg, location, automated reminders) and better clinical integration. CONCLUSION: The number of e-PRO systems has increased. Systems can be programmed to have numerous features that facilitate integration of PRO assessment and routine monitoring into clinical care. Important barriers to system usability and widespread adoption include assessment flexibility, clinical integration, and high-quality data collection and reporting.
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Daniel Sjoberg; Ethan Basch; Frank Sculli; Marwan Shouery; Vincent Laudone; Karim Touijer; James Eastham; Peter T Scardino Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: S A McLachlan; A Allenby; J Matthews; A Wirth; D Kissane; M Bishop; J Beresford; J Zalcberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Monika Alise Johansen; Eva Henriksen; Alexander Horsch; Tibor Schuster; Gro K Rosvold Berntsen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Amanda L Blackford; Jonathan Sussman; Daryl Bainbridge; Doris Howell; Hsien Y Seow; Michael A Carducci; Albert W Wu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Frank J Penedo; Laura B Oswald; Joshua P Kronenfeld; Sofia F Garcia; David Cella; Betina Yanez Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Arnold L Potosky; Carol M Moinpour; Tania Lobo; David Cella; Elizabeth A Hahn; David Thissen; Ashley Wilder Smith; Jaeil Ahn; George Luta; Bryce B Reeve Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Nan E Rothrock; Esi M DeWitt; Brennan Spiegel; Carole A Tucker; Heidi M Crane; Christopher B Forrest; Donald L Patrick; Rob Fredericksen; Lisa M Shulman; David Cella; Paul K Crane Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Richard Baird; Ian Banks; David Cameron; John Chester; Helena Earl; Mark Flannagan; Adam Januszewski; Richard Kennedy; Sarah Payne; Emlyn Samuel; Hannah Taylor; Roshan Agarwal; Samreen Ahmed; Caroline Archer; Ruth Board; Judith Carser; Ellen Copson; David Cunningham; Rob Coleman; Adam Dangoor; Graham Dark; Diana Eccles; Chris Gallagher; Adam Glaser; Richard Griffiths; Geoff Hall; Marcia Hall; Danielle Harari; Michael Hawkins; Mark Hill; Peter Johnson; Alison Jones; Tania Kalsi; Eleni Karapanagiotou; Zoe Kemp; Janine Mansi; Ernie Marshall; Alex Mitchell; Maung Moe; Caroline Michie; Richard Neal; Tom Newsom-Davis; Alison Norton; Richard Osborne; Gargi Patel; John Radford; Alistair Ring; Emily Shaw; Rod Skinner; Dan Stark; Sam Turnbull; Galina Velikova; Jeff White; Alison Young; Johnathan Joffe; Peter Selby Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2016-01-05
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Mark A Clark; John V Cox; Burton M Needles; Carole Seigel; Bijal A Balasubramanian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840