Andrea L Hartzler1, Jason P Izard2, Bruce L Dalkin3, Sean P Mikles4, John L Gore3. 1. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA hartzler.a@ghc.org. 2. Departments of Urology and Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a valued source of health information, but prior work focuses largely on data capture without guidance on visual displays that promote effective PRO use in patient-centered care. We engaged patients, providers, and design experts in human-centered design of "PRO dashboards" that illustrate trends in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) reported by patients following prostate cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed and assessed the feasibility of integrating dashboards into care in 3 steps: (1) capture PRO needs of patients and providers through focus groups and interviews; (2) iteratively build and refine a prototype dashboard; and (3) pilot test dashboards with patients and their provider during follow-up care. RESULTS: Focus groups (n = 60 patients) prioritized needs for dashboards that compared longitudinal trends in patients' HRQOL with "men like me." Of the candidate dashboard designs, 50 patients and 50 providers rated pictographs less helpful than bar charts, line graphs, or tables (P < .001) and preferred bar charts and line graphs most. Given these needs and the design recommendations from our Patient Advisory Board (n = 7) and design experts (n = 7), we built and refined a prototype that charts patients' HRQOL compared with age- and treatment-matched patients in personalized dashboards. Pilot testing dashboard use (n = 12 patients) improved compliance with quality indicators for prostate cancer care (P < .01). CONCLUSION: PRO dashboards are a promising approach for integrating patient-generated data into prostate cancer care. Informed by human-centered design principles, this work establishes guidance on dashboard content, tailoring, and clinical use that patients and providers find meaningful.
OBJECTIVE:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a valued source of health information, but prior work focuses largely on data capture without guidance on visual displays that promote effective PRO use in patient-centered care. We engaged patients, providers, and design experts in human-centered design of "PRO dashboards" that illustrate trends in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) reported by patients following prostate cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed and assessed the feasibility of integrating dashboards into care in 3 steps: (1) capture PRO needs of patients and providers through focus groups and interviews; (2) iteratively build and refine a prototype dashboard; and (3) pilot test dashboards with patients and their provider during follow-up care. RESULTS: Focus groups (n = 60 patients) prioritized needs for dashboards that compared longitudinal trends in patients' HRQOL with "men like me." Of the candidate dashboard designs, 50 patients and 50 providers rated pictographs less helpful than bar charts, line graphs, or tables (P < .001) and preferred bar charts and line graphs most. Given these needs and the design recommendations from our Patient Advisory Board (n = 7) and design experts (n = 7), we built and refined a prototype that charts patients' HRQOL compared with age- and treatment-matched patients in personalized dashboards. Pilot testing dashboard use (n = 12 patients) improved compliance with quality indicators for prostate cancer care (P < .01). CONCLUSION: PRO dashboards are a promising approach for integrating patient-generated data into prostate cancer care. Informed by human-centered design principles, this work establishes guidance on dashboard content, tailoring, and clinical use that patients and providers find meaningful.
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Blackford Middleton; Meryl Bloomrosen; Mark A Dente; Bill Hashmat; Ross Koppel; J Marc Overhage; Thomas H Payne; S Trent Rosenbloom; Charlotte Weaver; Jiajie Zhang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ronald C Chen; Peter Chang; Richard J Vetter; Himansu Lukka; William A Stokes; Martin G Sanda; Deborah Watkins-Bruner; Bryce B Reeve; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-08-27
Authors: Suzanne Bakken; Sue Marden; S Sonia Arteaga; Lisa Grossman; Alla Keselman; Phuong-Tu Le; Ruth Masterson Creber; Tiffany M Powell-Wiley; Rebecca Schnall; Derrick Tabor; Rina Das; Tilda Farhat Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Robert M Cronin; Douglas Conway; David Condon; Rebecca N Jerome; Daniel W Byrne; Paul A Harris Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Matthew K Hong; Lauren Wilcox; Daniel Machado; Thomas A Olson; Stephen F Simoneaux Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2016-05-07
Authors: Udit Singhal; Ted A Skolarus; John L Gore; Matthew G Parry; Ronald C Chen; Julie Nossiter; Alan Paniagua-Cruz; Arvin K George; Paul Cathcart; Jan van der Meulen; Daniela A Wittmann Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 16.430
Authors: Meredith Fischer; Nadia Safaeinili; Marie C Haverfield; Cati G Brown-Johnson; Dani Zionts; Donna M Zulman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 5.128