BACKGROUND:Routine symptom and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessments can engage patients, give provider feedback, and improve doctor/patient communication. OBJECTIVE: We compared the impact of a technology-assisted symptom monitoring system versus usual care on HRQOL and doctor/patient communication in early-stage prostate cancer (PCa) survivors. METHODS:Men (N = 94) were on average 62-years old, mostly African American (AA; 61.7%), and 10-19 months post-treatment. They were randomized to symptom monitoring plus feedback (SM + F; n = 49) or usual care (UC; n = 45). SM+F participants completed a 12-itemtelephoneassisted monitoring intervention. All participants completed a baseline and 2 follow-up interviews. RESULTS: Among the SM+F participants, perceptions of the monitoring system were positive: 97.1% endorsed it as easy/very easy to use and 85% felt all patients could benefit from it. At baseline, men reported favorable general and cancer-specific HRQOL and doctor/patient communication, but poorer urinary and sexual function. Although there was no overall impact of the intervention, post hoc exploratory analyses indicated that among AA men, those who received SM+F improved relative to UC on doctor/patient communication (P < .05), general HRQOL (P < .06), and sexual function (P < .05). LIMITATIONS: Variability in survivor follow-up care, limited access to eligible participants, and minimal physician training in the use of reports likely decreased physician investment. CONCLUSION: Overall, PCa survivors were receptive to this monitoring system. Exploratory analyses suggest that this technology-assisted monitoring system may be of particular benefit to African American men. Additional studies with larger samples, more intervention time-points, and increased physician training are needed to strengthen the intervention's impact.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Routine symptom and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessments can engage patients, give provider feedback, and improve doctor/patient communication. OBJECTIVE: We compared the impact of a technology-assisted symptom monitoring system versus usual care on HRQOL and doctor/patient communication in early-stage prostate cancer (PCa) survivors. METHODS:Men (N = 94) were on average 62-years old, mostly African American (AA; 61.7%), and 10-19 months post-treatment. They were randomized to symptom monitoring plus feedback (SM + F; n = 49) or usual care (UC; n = 45). SM+F participants completed a 12-item telephoneassisted monitoring intervention. All participants completed a baseline and 2 follow-up interviews. RESULTS: Among the SM+F participants, perceptions of the monitoring system were positive: 97.1% endorsed it as easy/very easy to use and 85% felt all patients could benefit from it. At baseline, men reported favorable general and cancer-specific HRQOL and doctor/patient communication, but poorer urinary and sexual function. Although there was no overall impact of the intervention, post hoc exploratory analyses indicated that among AA men, those who received SM+F improved relative to UC on doctor/patient communication (P < .05), general HRQOL (P < .06), and sexual function (P < .05). LIMITATIONS: Variability in survivor follow-up care, limited access to eligible participants, and minimal physician training in the use of reports likely decreased physician investment. CONCLUSION: Overall, PCa survivors were receptive to this monitoring system. Exploratory analyses suggest that this technology-assisted monitoring system may be of particular benefit to African American men. Additional studies with larger samples, more intervention time-points, and increased physician training are needed to strengthen the intervention's impact.
Authors: Chris Gibbons; Ian Porter; Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley; Stanimir Stoilov; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Elena Tsangaris; Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli; Antoinette Davey; Elizabeth J Gibbons; Anna Kotzeva; Jonathan Evans; Philip J van der Wees; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Joanne Greenhalgh; Peter Bower; Jordi Alonso; Jose M Valderas Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-12
Authors: Kimberly M Davis; Scott P Kelly; George Luta; Catherine Tomko; Anthony B Miller; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Urology Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Beverley L Høeg; Pernille E Bidstrup; Randi V Karlsen; Anne Sofie Friberg; Vanna Albieri; Susanne O Dalton; Lena Saltbæk; Klaus Kaae Andersen; Trine Allerslev Horsboel; Christoffer Johansen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-11-21
Authors: Neetu Chawla; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Katherine S Virgo; Donatus U Ekwueme; Xuesong Han; Laura Forsythe; Juan Rodriguez; Timothy S McNeel; K Robin Yabroff Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Caitlin Graupner; Merel L Kimman; Suzanne Mul; Annerika H M Slok; Danny Claessens; Jos Kleijnen; Carmen D Dirksen; Stéphanie O Breukink Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 3.603