Bernard Tawfik1,2,3, Ellen Burgess4, Mikaela Kosich4, Shoshana Adler Jaffe4, Dolores D Guest4,5, Ursa Brown-Glaberman4,6, V Shane Pankratz4,5, Andrew Sussman4,7. 1. University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA. btawfik@salud.unm.edu. 2. Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of New Mexico Department of Internal Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA. btawfik@salud.unm.edu. 3. Division of Hematology/Oncology, UNM Comprehensive Cancer Center, MSC 07-4025, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA. btawfik@salud.unm.edu. 4. University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 5. Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Preventive Medicine, University of New Mexico Department of Internal Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 6. Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of New Mexico Department of Internal Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 7. University of New Mexico Department of Family and Community Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient, oncologist and nurse perspectives on side effects and patient reported outcomes (PROs) with the question of how to optimize side effect management and PRO tools in this unique population. METHODS: This pilot study utilized a mixed method explanatory design. Patients receiving intravenous (IV) chemotherapy from June to August 2020 were surveyed about side effect burden and PRO system preferences. Providers and nurses (PN) completed complementary surveys. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted among a subset of each group. RESULTS: Of 90 patient surveys collected; 51.1% minority, 35.6% rural, and 40.0% income < $30,000, 48% felt side effect management was a significant issue. All patients reported access to a communication device but 12.2% did not own a cell phone; 68% smart phone, 20% cell phone, 22% landline, 53% computer, and 39% tablet. Patients preferred a response to reported side effects within 0-3 h (73%) while only 29% of the 55 PN surveyed did (p < 0.0001). Interviews reinforced that side effect burden was a significant issue, the varied communication devices, and a PRO system could improve side effect management. CONCLUSION: In a non-White, rural and low-income patient population, 87.8% of patients reported owning a cell phone. Although all agreed side effect management was a prominent issue, expectations between patients and PN differed substantially. Qualitative data echoed the above and providing concrete suggestions to inform development of a PRO program and side effect mitigation strategies among a diverse patient population.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient, oncologist and nurse perspectives on side effects and patient reported outcomes (PROs) with the question of how to optimize side effect management and PRO tools in this unique population. METHODS: This pilot study utilized a mixed method explanatory design. Patients receiving intravenous (IV) chemotherapy from June to August 2020 were surveyed about side effect burden and PRO system preferences. Providers and nurses (PN) completed complementary surveys. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted among a subset of each group. RESULTS: Of 90 patient surveys collected; 51.1% minority, 35.6% rural, and 40.0% income < $30,000, 48% felt side effect management was a significant issue. All patients reported access to a communication device but 12.2% did not own a cell phone; 68% smart phone, 20% cell phone, 22% landline, 53% computer, and 39% tablet. Patients preferred a response to reported side effects within 0-3 h (73%) while only 29% of the 55 PN surveyed did (p < 0.0001). Interviews reinforced that side effect burden was a significant issue, the varied communication devices, and a PRO system could improve side effect management. CONCLUSION: In a non-White, rural and low-income patient population, 87.8% of patients reported owning a cell phone. Although all agreed side effect management was a prominent issue, expectations between patients and PN differed substantially. Qualitative data echoed the above and providing concrete suggestions to inform development of a PRO program and side effect mitigation strategies among a diverse patient population.
Authors: Nadia A Nabulsi; Ali Alobaidi; Brian Talon; Alemseged A Asfaw; Jifang Zhou; Lisa K Sharp; Karen Sweiss; Pritesh R Patel; Naomi Y Ko; Brian C-H Chiu; Gregory S Calip Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Albert W Wu; Galina Velikova; Caroline B Terwee; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn Schwartz; Dennis A Revicki; Carol M Moinpour; Lori D McLeod; Jessica C Lyons; William R Lenderking; Pamela S Hinds; Ron D Hays; Joanne Greenhalgh; Richard Gershon; David Feeny; Peter M Fayers; David Cella; Michael Brundage; Sara Ahmed; Neil K Aaronson; Zeeshan Butt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Neil K Aaronson; Ali K Choucair; Thomas E Elliott; Joanne Greenhalgh; Michele Y Halyard; Rachel Hess; Deborah M Miller; Bryce B Reeve; Maria Santana Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ethan Basch; Allison M Deal; Mark G Kris; Howard I Scher; Clifford A Hudis; Paul Sabbatini; Lauren Rogak; Antonia V Bennett; Amylou C Dueck; Thomas M Atkinson; Joanne F Chou; Dorothy Dulko; Laura Sit; Allison Barz; Paul Novotny; Michael Fruscione; Jeff A Sloan; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 44.544