Christina Karamanidou1, Pantelis Natsiavas1, Lefteris Koumakis2, Kostas Marias2, Fatima Schera3, Michael Schäfer3, Sheila Payne4, Christos Maramis1. 1. Institute of Applied Biosciences, Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2. Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research & Technology Hellas, Heraklion, Greece. 3. Fraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering IBMT, St Ingbert, Germany. 4. International Observatory on End of Life Care, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Capitalizing on the promise of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), electronic implementations of PROs (ePROs) are expected to play an important role in the development of novel digital health interventions targeting palliative cancer care. We performed a systematic and mapping review of the scientific literature on the current ePRO-based approaches used for palliative cancer care. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines, the conducted review answered the research questions: "What are the current ePRO-based approaches for palliative cancer care; what is their contribution/value in the domain of palliative cancer care; and what are the potential gaps, challenges, and opportunities for further research?" After a screening step, the corpus of included articles indexed in PubMed or the Web of Science underwent full text review, which mapped the articles across 15 predefined axes. RESULTS: The corpus of 24 mapped studies includes 9 study protocols, 7 technical tools/solutions, 7 pilot/feasibility/acceptability studies, and 1 evaluation study. The review of the corpus revealed (1) an archetype of ePRO-enabled interventions for palliative cancer care, which most commonly use ePROs as study end point assessment instruments rather than integral intervention components; (2) the fact that the literature has not fully embraced the modern definitions that expand the scope of palliative care; (3) the striking shortage of promising ubiquitous computing devices (eg, smart activity trackers); and (4) emerging evidence about the benefits of narrowing down the target cancer population, especially when combined with modern patient-centered intervention design methodologies. CONCLUSION: Although research on exploiting ePROs for the development of digital palliative cancer care interventions is considerably active and demonstrates several successful cases, there is considerable room for improvement along the directions of the aforementioned findings.
PURPOSE: Capitalizing on the promise of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), electronic implementations of PROs (ePROs) are expected to play an important role in the development of novel digital health interventions targeting palliative cancer care. We performed a systematic and mapping review of the scientific literature on the current ePRO-based approaches used for palliative cancer care. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines, the conducted review answered the research questions: "What are the current ePRO-based approaches for palliative cancer care; what is their contribution/value in the domain of palliative cancer care; and what are the potential gaps, challenges, and opportunities for further research?" After a screening step, the corpus of included articles indexed in PubMed or the Web of Science underwent full text review, which mapped the articles across 15 predefined axes. RESULTS: The corpus of 24 mapped studies includes 9 study protocols, 7 technical tools/solutions, 7 pilot/feasibility/acceptability studies, and 1 evaluation study. The review of the corpus revealed (1) an archetype of ePRO-enabled interventions for palliative cancer care, which most commonly use ePROs as study end point assessment instruments rather than integral intervention components; (2) the fact that the literature has not fully embraced the modern definitions that expand the scope of palliative care; (3) the striking shortage of promising ubiquitous computing devices (eg, smart activity trackers); and (4) emerging evidence about the benefits of narrowing down the target cancer population, especially when combined with modern patient-centered intervention design methodologies. CONCLUSION: Although research on exploiting ePROs for the development of digital palliative cancer care interventions is considerably active and demonstrates several successful cases, there is considerable room for improvement along the directions of the aforementioned findings.
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Claudia Bausewein; Barbara A Daveson; David C Currow; Julia Downing; Luc Deliens; Lukas Radbruch; Kath Defilippi; Pedro Lopes Ferreira; Massimo Costantini; Richard Harding; Irene J Higginson Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Lindsay A Jibb; Bonnie J Stevens; Paul C Nathan; Emily Seto; Joseph A Cafazzo; Donna L Johnston; Vanessa Hum; Jennifer N Stinson Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Felicia Marie Knaul; Paul E Farmer; Eric L Krakauer; Liliana De Lima; Afsan Bhadelia; Xiaoxiao Jiang Kwete; Héctor Arreola-Ornelas; Octavio Gómez-Dantés; Natalia M Rodriguez; George A O Alleyne; Stephen R Connor; David J Hunter; Diederik Lohman; Lukas Radbruch; María Del Rocío Sáenz Madrigal; Rifat Atun; Kathleen M Foley; Julio Frenk; Dean T Jamison; M R Rajagopal Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lynne I Wagner; Julian Schink; Michael Bass; Shalini Patel; Maria Varela Diaz; Nan Rothrock; Timothy Pearman; Richard Gershon; Frank J Penedo; Steven Rosen; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Heleen C Melissant; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Inge R Konings; Pim Cuijpers; Cornelia F Van Uden-Kraan Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Sanne Duman-Lubberding; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Niels Peek; Pim Cuijpers; C René Leemans; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Augusta Silveira; Teresa Sequeira; Joaquim Gonçalves; Pedro Lopes Ferreira Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Tina Garani-Papadatos; Pantelis Natsiavas; Marcel Meyerheim; Stefan Hoffmann; Christina Karamanidou; Sheila A Payne Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2022-03-18
Authors: Stefan Hoffmann; Robert Schraut; Thomas Kröll; Wiebke Scholz; Tatiana Belova; Johann Erhardt; Daniel Gollmer; Christian Mauck; Giorgos Zacharioudakis; Marcel Meyerheim; Panos Bonotis; Christine Kakalou; Maria Chatzimina; Christina Karamanidou; Annette Sander; Jana Didi; Norbert Graf; Pantelis Natsiavas Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2021-12-08