Nicholas G Wysham1, Steven P Wolf1, Gregory Samsa1, Amy P Abernethy1, Thomas W LeBlanc1. 1. Nicholas G. Wysham, Steven P. Wolf, and Gregory Samsa, Duke University Medical Center; Nicholas G. Wysham, Duke Clinical Research Institute; Thomas W. LeBlanc, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; and Amy P. Abernethy, Flatiron Health, New York, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Routinely collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) could provide invaluable data to a patient-centered learning health system but are often highly missing in clinical trials. We analyzed our experience with PROs to understand patterns of missing data using electronic collection as part of routine clinical care. METHODS: This is an analysis of a prospectively collected observational database of electronic PROs captured as part of routine clinical care in four different outpatient oncology clinics at an academic referral center. RESULTS: More than 24,000 clinical encounters from 7,655 unique patients are included. Data were collected via an electronic tablet-based survey instrument (Patient Care Monitor, version 2.0), at the time of clinical care, as part of routine care processes. Missing instruments (ie, no items completed) were submitted for 6.8% of clinical encounters, and 15.8% of encounters had missing items. Nearly 90% of all encounters involved < 10% missing items. In multivariable analyses, younger age, private health insurance, being seen in the breast oncology clinic, less time spent on the instrument, and longitudinal care were significantly associated with less missingness. CONCLUSION: Embedding collection of electronic PRO data into routine clinical care yielded low rates of missing data in this real-world, prospectively collected database. In contrast to clinical trial experience, missingness improve with longitudinal care. This approach may be a solution to minimizing missingness of PROs in research or clinical care settings in support of learning health care systems.
PURPOSE: Routinely collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) could provide invaluable data to a patient-centered learning health system but are often highly missing in clinical trials. We analyzed our experience with PROs to understand patterns of missing data using electronic collection as part of routine clinical care. METHODS: This is an analysis of a prospectively collected observational database of electronic PROs captured as part of routine clinical care in four different outpatient oncology clinics at an academic referral center. RESULTS: More than 24,000 clinical encounters from 7,655 unique patients are included. Data were collected via an electronic tablet-based survey instrument (Patient Care Monitor, version 2.0), at the time of clinical care, as part of routine care processes. Missing instruments (ie, no items completed) were submitted for 6.8% of clinical encounters, and 15.8% of encounters had missing items. Nearly 90% of all encounters involved < 10% missing items. In multivariable analyses, younger age, private health insurance, being seen in the breast oncology clinic, less time spent on the instrument, and longitudinal care were significantly associated with less missingness. CONCLUSION: Embedding collection of electronic PRO data into routine clinical care yielded low rates of missing data in this real-world, prospectively collected database. In contrast to clinical trial experience, missingness improve with longitudinal care. This approach may be a solution to minimizing missingness of PROs in research or clinical care settings in support of learning health care systems.
Authors: Gian Maria Zaccaria; Simone Ferrero; Samanta Rosati; Marco Ghislieri; Elisa Genuardi; Andrea Evangelista; Rebecca Sandrone; Cristina Castagneri; Daniela Barbero; Mariella Lo Schirico; Luca Arcaini; Anna Lia Molinari; Filippo Ballerini; Andres Ferreri; Paola Omedè; Alberto Zamò; Gabriella Balestra; Mario Boccadoro; Sergio Cortelazzo; Marco Ladetto Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-10
Authors: Heather A Rosett; Susan C Locke; Steven P Wolf; Kris W Herring; Gregory P Samsa; Jesse D Troy; Thomas W LeBlanc Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Samuel U Takvorian; Erin Balogh; Sharyl Nass; Virginia L Valentin; Lori Hoffman-Hogg; Randall A Oyer; Robert W Carlson; Neal J Meropol; Lisa Kennedy Sheldon; Lawrence N Shulman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Patricia Lindberg-Scharf; Brunhilde Steinger; Michael Koller; Andrea Hofstädter; Olaf Ortmann; Jan Kurz; Jonathan Sasse; Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-06-27 Impact factor: 3.603