Kate Absolom1,2, Lorraine Warrington1, Eleanor Hudson3, Jenny Hewison2, Carolyn Morris4, Patricia Holch1,5, Robert Carter1, Andrea Gibson1,6, Marie Holmes1, Beverly Clayton1, Zoe Rogers1, Lucy McParland3, Mark Conner7, Liz Glidewell2, Barbara Woroncow8, Bryony Dawkins2, Sarah Dickinson1, Claire Hulme2,9, Julia Brown3, Galina Velikova1,6. 1. Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom. 2. Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 3. Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 4. Patient Representative, Independent Cancer Patients Voices, Brighton, United Kingdom. 5. Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom. 6. Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom. 7. School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 8. Patient Representative, Research Advisory Group to Patient-Centred Outcomes Research at Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom. 9. University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent. METHODS:Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246. RESULTS:Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 (P = .028) and 12 (P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) (P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks (P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy (P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS (P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent. METHODS:Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246. RESULTS:Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 (P = .028) and 12 (P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) (P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks (P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy (P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS (P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.
Authors: Christopher W Noel; Rinku Sutradhar; Lesley Gotlib Conn; David Forner; Wing C Chan; Rui Fu; Julie Hallet; Natalie G Coburn; Antoine Eskander Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 8.961
Authors: Jens Lehmann; Petra Buhl; Johannes M Giesinger; Lisa M Wintner; Monika Sztankay; Lucia Neppl; Wolfgang Willenbacher; Roman Weger; Walpurga Weyrer; Gerhard Rumpold; Bernhard Holzner Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Roma Maguire; Lisa McCann; Grigorios Kotronoulas; Nora Kearney; Emma Ream; Jo Armes; Elisabeth Patiraki; Eileen Furlong; Patricia Fox; Alexander Gaiger; Paul McCrone; Geir Berg; Christine Miaskowkski; Antonella Cardone; Dawn Orr; Adrian Flowerday; Stylianos Katsaragakis; Andrew Darley; Simone Lubowitzki; Jenny Harris; Simon Skene; Morven Miller; Margaret Moore; Liane Lewis; Nicosha DeSouza; Peter T Donnan Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-07-21
Authors: Talya Salz; Jamie S Ostroff; Chandylen L Nightingale; Thomas M Atkinson; Eleanor C Davidson; Sankeerth R Jinna; Anuja Kriplani; Glenn J Lesser; Kathleen A Lynch; Deborah K Mayer; Kevin C Oeffinger; Sujata Patil; Andrew L Salner; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Mostafa R Mohamed; Sindhuja Kadambi; Eva Culakova; Huiwen Xu; Allison Magnuson; Marie Flannery; Paul R Duberstein; Ronald M Epstein; Colin McHugh; Ryan D Nipp; Kelly M Trevino; Chandrika Sanapala; Bianca A Hall; Beverly Canin; Arlene A Gayle; Alison Conlin; James Bearden; Supriya G Mohile Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 5.837