Literature DB >> 27502744

Real-world implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes in outpatient pediatric cancer care.

Sasja A Schepers1,2, Simone M Sint Nicolaas3, Lotte Haverman1, Michel Wensing4, Antoinette Y N Schouten van Meeteren5, Margreet A Veening6, Huib N Caron5, Peter M Hoogerbrugge2, Gertjan J L Kaspers2,6, Christianne M Verhaak3, Martha A Grootenhuis1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The KLIK method is an online tool that monitors and discusses electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), which has been shown to enhance outcomes. This study aimed (1) to determine the fidelity (ie, extent to which used as intended) of the KLIK method as implemented in outpatient pediatric cancer care and (2) to study health care professional (HCP)-reported barriers and facilitators for implementation.
METHODS: Two hundred five children with newly diagnosed cancer (enrollment rate 85%) participated. At 1 (T1), 3 (T2), and 6 (T3) months after diagnosis, patients (8-18 years) or parents (of patients 0-7 years) completed health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires, which were transformed into an ePROfile and discussed by their HCP during consultations. Fidelity was determined by the following: percentage of website registrations, HRQoL questionnaires completed, and ePROfiles discussed. Implementation determinants were assessed with HCPs after the final T3 with the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations.
RESULTS: Depending on the time point (T1-T3), fidelity was 86% to 89% for website registration, 66-85% for completed HRQoL questionnaires, and 56% to 62% for ePROfile discussion. Barriers were mainly related to organizational issues (eg, organizational change) and less frequently to users (eg, motivation to comply) or the intervention (compatibility). Facilitators were related to the user (eg, positive outcome expectations) and intervention (simplicity) but not to the organization.
CONCLUSIONS: When implementing ePROs in outpatient pediatric oncology practice, HCPs report determinants that influence ePRO integration. To improve implementation and outcomes, tailored organizational (eg, formal ratification by management and time) and specific local (eg, individualized assessments) strategies should be developed to achieve optimal ePRO discussion.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer; communication; electronic patient-reported outcomes; implementation; oncology

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27502744     DOI: 10.1002/pon.4242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychooncology        ISSN: 1057-9249            Impact factor:   3.894


  28 in total

1.  Commentary: Treating the Pediatric Cancer Patient: Insights That Have Stood the Test of Time.

Authors:  Lori Wiener; Myra Bluebond-Langner
Journal:  J Pediatr Psychol       Date:  2019-08-01

2.  Using formative evaluation to plan for electronic psychosocial screening in pediatric oncology.

Authors:  Jordan Gilleland Marchak; Sean N Halpin; Cam Escoffery; Shadé Owolabi; Ann C Mertens; Karen Wasilewski-Masker
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.894

3.  Healthcare Professionals' Preferences and Perceived Barriers for Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Pediatric Oncology Practice: Moving Toward International Processes of Change.

Authors:  Sasja A Schepers; Lotte Haverman; Sima Zadeh; Martha A Grootenhuis; Lori Wiener
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 3.167

4.  Parent mental health and family functioning following diagnosis of CHD: a research agenda and recommendations from the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative.

Authors:  Erica Sood; Amy Jo Lisanti; Sarah E Woolf-King; Jo Wray; Nadine Kasparian; Emily Jackson; Mary R Gregory; Keila N Lopez; Bradley S Marino; Trent Neely; Amy Randall; Sinai C Zyblewski; Cheryl L Brosig
Journal:  Cardiol Young       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 1.093

5.  Uptake of an Integrated Electronic Questionnaire System in Community Pediatric Clinics.

Authors:  Janel Hanmer; Kristin N Ray; Polly McCracken; Lorraine Ferrante; Sharon Wardlaw; Lauren Fleischman; David Wolfson
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 2.342

6.  Considerations to Support Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric Measures in Ambulatory Clinics.

Authors:  Elizabeth D Cox; Sarah K Dobrozsi; Christopher B Forrest; Wendy E Gerhardt; Harald Kliems; Bryce B Reeve; Nan E Rothrock; Jin-Shei Lai; Jacob M Svenson; Lindsay A Thompson; Thuy Dan N Tran; Carole A Tucker
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 4.406

7.  Sugarsquare, a Web-Based Patient Portal for Parents of a Child With Type 1 Diabetes: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

Authors:  Emiel Boogerd; Nienke M Maas-Van Schaaijk; Theo C Sas; Agnes Clement-de Boers; Mischa Smallenbroek; Roos Nuboer; Cees Noordam; Chris M Verhaak
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  First experience with electronic feedback of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool in pediatric cancer care.

Authors:  Sasja A Schepers; Simone M Sint Nicolaas; Heleen Maurice-Stam; Elisabeth M van Dijk-Lokkart; Esther M M van den Bergh; Nienke de Boer; Chris M Verhaak; Martha A Grootenhuis
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Compliance with patient-reported outcome assessment in glioma patients: predictors for drop out.

Authors:  Mirjam Renovanz; Marlene Hechtner; Karoline Kohlmann; Mareile Janko; Minou Nadji-Ohl; Susanne Singer; Florian Ringel; Jan Coburger; Anne-Katrin Hickmann
Journal:  Neurooncol Pract       Date:  2017-10-31

10.  Health related quality of life in Dutch infants, toddlers, and young children.

Authors:  S A Schepers; H A van Oers; H Maurice-Stam; J Huisman; C M Verhaak; M A Grootenhuis; L Haverman
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.