Claire Snyder1,2,3, Susan M Hannum4, Sharon White5,4, Amanda Montanari5, Dara Ikejiani5, Benjamin Smith6, Amanda Blackford7,5, Elissa Thorner5, Katherine C Smith5,4, Michael A Carducci7,5, Vered Stearns7,5, Karen Lisa Smith7,5. 1. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. csnyder@jhu.edu. 2. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. csnyder@jhu.edu. 3. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. csnyder@jhu.edu. 4. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Johns Hopkins Health System, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: PRO-cision medicine refers to personalizing care using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We developed and feasibility-tested a PRO-cision Medicine remote PRO monitoring intervention designed to identify symptoms and reduce the frequency of routine in-person visits. METHODS: We conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews with metastatic breast (n = 15) and prostate (n = 15) cancer patients and clinicians (n = 10) to elicit their perspectives on a PRO-cision Medicine intervention's design, value, and concerns. We then feasibility-tested the intervention in 24 patients with metastatic breast cancer over 6-months. We obtained feedback via end-of-study surveys (patients) and interviews (clinicians). RESULTS: Focus group and interview participants reported that remote PRO symptom reporting could alert clinicians to issues and avoid unneeded/unwanted visits. However, some patients did not perceive avoiding visits as beneficial. Clinicians were concerned about workflow. In the feasibility-test, 24/236 screened patients (10%) enrolled. Many patients were already being seen less frequently than monthly (n = 97) or clinicians did not feel comfortable seeing them less frequently than monthly (n = 31). Over the 6-month study, there were 75 total alerts from 392 PRO symptom assessments (average 0.19 alert/assessment). Patients had an average of 4 in-person visits (vs. expected 6.5 without the intervention). Patients (n = 19/24) reported high support on the end-of-study survey, with more than 80% agreeing with positive statements about the intervention. Clinician end-of-study interviews (n = 11/14) suggested that PRO symptom monitoring be added to clinic visits, rather than replacing them, and noted the increasing role of telemedicine. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore combining remote PRO symptom monitoring with telemedicine and in-person visits.
PURPOSE: PRO-cision medicine refers to personalizing care using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We developed and feasibility-tested a PRO-cision Medicine remote PRO monitoring intervention designed to identify symptoms and reduce the frequency of routine in-person visits. METHODS: We conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews with metastatic breast (n = 15) and prostate (n = 15) cancer patients and clinicians (n = 10) to elicit their perspectives on a PRO-cision Medicine intervention's design, value, and concerns. We then feasibility-tested the intervention in 24 patients with metastatic breast cancer over 6-months. We obtained feedback via end-of-study surveys (patients) and interviews (clinicians). RESULTS: Focus group and interview participants reported that remote PRO symptom reporting could alert clinicians to issues and avoid unneeded/unwanted visits. However, some patients did not perceive avoiding visits as beneficial. Clinicians were concerned about workflow. In the feasibility-test, 24/236 screened patients (10%) enrolled. Many patients were already being seen less frequently than monthly (n = 97) or clinicians did not feel comfortable seeing them less frequently than monthly (n = 31). Over the 6-month study, there were 75 total alerts from 392 PRO symptom assessments (average 0.19 alert/assessment). Patients had an average of 4 in-person visits (vs. expected 6.5 without the intervention). Patients (n = 19/24) reported high support on the end-of-study survey, with more than 80% agreeing with positive statements about the intervention. Clinician end-of-study interviews (n = 11/14) suggested that PRO symptom monitoring be added to clinic visits, rather than replacing them, and noted the increasing role of telemedicine. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore combining remote PRO symptom monitoring with telemedicine and in-person visits.
Authors: Donna L Berry; Brent A Blumenstein; Barbara Halpenny; Seth Wolpin; Jesse R Fann; Mary Austin-Seymour; Nigel Bush; Bryant T Karras; William B Lober; Ruth McCorkle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Emily Mackler; Laura Petersen; Jane Severson; Douglas W Blayney; Lydia L Benitez; Caitlin R Early; Shannon Hough; Jennifer J Griggs Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Ethan Basch; Allison M Deal; Amylou C Dueck; Howard I Scher; Mark G Kris; Clifford Hudis; Deborah Schrag Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: S A McLachlan; A Allenby; J Matthews; A Wirth; D Kissane; M Bishop; J Beresford; J Zalcberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maria-Jose Santana; David Feeny; Jeffrey A Johnson; Finlay A McAlister; Daniel Kim; Justin Weinkauf; Dale C Lien Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544