T G Smith1, M E Dunn2, K Y Levin2, S P Tsakraklides2, S A Mitchell3, L V van de Poll-Franse4,5,6, K C Ward7, C L Wiggins8, X C Wu9, M Hurlbert10, N K Aaronson4. 1. Behavioral and Epidemiology Research Group, American Cancer Society, 250 Williams Street, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA. tenbroeck.smith@cancer.org. 2. Westat, Rockville, MD, USA. 3. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases (CoRPS), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 7. Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 8. New Mexico Tumor Registry, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 9. Louisiana Tumor Registry/ School of Public Health Epidemiology Program, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA. 10. Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Central cancer registries collect data and provide population-level statistics that can be tracked over time; yet registries may not capture the full range of clinically relevant outcomes. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) include health/treatment history, biometrics, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Collection of PGHD would broaden registry outcomes to better inform research, policy, and care. However, this is dependent on the willingness of patients to share such data. This study examines cancer survivors' perspectives about sharing PGHD with central cancer registries. METHODS: Three U.S. central registries sampled colorectal, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and metastatic breast cancer survivors 1-4 years after diagnosis, recruiting them via mail to participate in one of seven focus groups (n = 52). Group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Most survivor-participants were unaware of the existence of registries. After having registries explained, all participants expressed their willingness to share PGHD with them if treated confidentially. Participants were willing to provide information on a variety of topics (e.g., medical history, medications, symptoms, financial difficulties, quality of life, biometrics, nutrition, exercise, and mental health), with a focus on long-term effects of cancer and its treatment. Participants' preferred mode for providing data varied. Participants were also interested in receiving information from registries. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that registry-based collection of PGHD is acceptable to most cancer survivors and could facilitate registry-based efforts to collect PGHD/PROs. Central cancer registry-based collection of PGHD/PROs, especially on long-term effects, could enhance registry support of cancer control efforts including research and population health management.
PURPOSE: Central cancer registries collect data and provide population-level statistics that can be tracked over time; yet registries may not capture the full range of clinically relevant outcomes. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) include health/treatment history, biometrics, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Collection of PGHD would broaden registry outcomes to better inform research, policy, and care. However, this is dependent on the willingness of patients to share such data. This study examines cancer survivors' perspectives about sharing PGHD with central cancer registries. METHODS: Three U.S. central registries sampled colorectal, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and metastatic breast cancer survivors 1-4 years after diagnosis, recruiting them via mail to participate in one of seven focus groups (n = 52). Group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Most survivor-participants were unaware of the existence of registries. After having registries explained, all participants expressed their willingness to share PGHD with them if treated confidentially. Participants were willing to provide information on a variety of topics (e.g., medical history, medications, symptoms, financial difficulties, quality of life, biometrics, nutrition, exercise, and mental health), with a focus on long-term effects of cancer and its treatment. Participants' preferred mode for providing data varied. Participants were also interested in receiving information from registries. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that registry-based collection of PGHD is acceptable to most cancer survivors and could facilitate registry-based efforts to collect PGHD/PROs. Central cancer registry-based collection of PGHD/PROs, especially on long-term effects, could enhance registry support of cancer control efforts including research and population health management.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer survivors; Focus groups; Patient generated health data; Patient-reported outcome measures; Quality of life; Registries
Authors: Ethan Basch; John Spertus; R Adams Dudley; Albert Wu; Cynthia Chuahan; Perry Cohen; Mary Lou Smith; Nick Black; Amaris Crawford; Keri Christensen; Kathleen Blake; Christine Goertz Journal: Value Health Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: John P Barile; Bryce B Reeve; Ashley Wilder Smith; Matthew M Zack; Sandra A Mitchell; Rosemarie Kobau; David F Cella; Cecily Luncheon; William W Thompson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-08-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Amylou C Dueck; Ethan Basch; David Cella; Carolyn Miller Reilly; Lori M Minasian; Andrea M Denicoff; Ann M O'Mara; Michael J Fisch; Cynthia Chauhan; Neil K Aaronson; Corneel Coens; Deborah Watkins Bruner Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Melissa S Y Thong; Floortje Mols; Kevin D Stein; Tenbroeck Smith; Jan-Willem W Coebergh; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Derek Kyte; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Anita Slade; An-Wen Chan; Madeleine T King; Amanda Hunn; Andrew Bottomley; Antoine Regnault; An-Wen Chan; Carolyn Ells; Daniel O'Connor; Dennis Revicki; Donald Patrick; Doug Altman; Ethan Basch; Galina Velikova; Gary Price; Heather Draper; Jane Blazeby; Jane Scott; Joanna Coast; Josephine Norquist; Julia Brown; Kirstie Haywood; Laura Lee Johnson; Lisa Campbell; Lori Frank; Maria von Hildebrand; Michael Brundage; Michael Palmer; Paul Kluetz; Richard Stephens; Robert M Golub; Sandra Mitchell; Trish Groves Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Neetu Chawla; Matthew Urato; Anita Ambs; Nicola Schussler; Ron D Hays; Steven B Clauser; Alan M Zaslavsky; Kayo Walsh; Margot Schwartz; Michael Halpern; Sarah Gaillot; Elizabeth H Goldstein; Neeraj K Arora Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Naomi C Brownstein; Anna Barata; Adam P Dicker; Hans Knoop; Brian D Gonzalez; Randa Perkins; Dana Rollison; Scott M Gilbert; Ronica Nanda; Anders Berglund; Ross Mitchell; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Emma Simpson; Richard Brown; Elizabeth Sillence; Lynne Coventry; Karen Lloyd; Jo Gibbs; Shema Tariq; Abigail C Durrant Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-11-23
Authors: Lisa Gallicchio; Joanne W Elena; Sarah Fagan; Marjorie Carter; Ann S Hamilton; Theresa A Hastert; Lisa L Hunter; Jie Li; Charles F Lynch; Joel Milam; Morgan M Millar; Denise Modjeski; Lisa E Paddock; Amanda R Reed; Lisa B Moses; Antoinette M Stroup; Carol Sweeney; Edward J Trapido; Michele M West; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Kathy J Helzlsouer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 4.254