Literature DB >> 35985004

Utilization of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Platform to Evaluate the Psychosocial and Quality-of-Life Experience Among a Community Sample of Ovarian Cancer Survivors.

Fay J Hlubocky1,2, Christopher K Daugherty1, Jeffery Peppercorn3, Karen Young4, Kristen E Wroblewski5, Seiko Diane Yamada2, Nita K Lee2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Novel distress screening approaches using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measurements are critical for the provision of comprehensive quality community cancer care. Using an ePRO platform, the prevalence of psychosocial factors (distress, post-traumatic growth, resilience, and financial stress) affecting quality of life in ovarian cancer survivors (OCSs) was examined.
METHODS: A cross-sectional OCS sample from the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition-Illinois Chapter completed web-based clinical, sociodemographic, and psychosocial assessment using well-validated measures: Hospital Anxiety/Depression Scale-anxiety/depression, Post-traumatic Growth Inventory, Brief Resilience Scale, comprehensive score for financial toxicity, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O/health-related quality of life [HRQOL]). Correlational analyses between variables were conducted.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent (174 of 300) of OCS completed virtual assessment: median age 59 (range 32-83) years, 94.2% White, 60.3% married/in domestic partnership, 59.6% stage III-IV, 48.8% employed full-time/part-time, 55.2% had college/postgraduate education, 71.9% completed primary treatment, and median disease duration 6 (range < 1-34) years. On average, OCS endorsed normal levels of anxiety (mean ± standard deviation = 6.9 ± 3.8), depression (4.1 ± 3.6), mild total distress (10.9 ± 8.9), high post-traumatic growth (72.6 ± 21.5), normal resilience (3.7 ± 0.72), good FACT-O-HRQOL (112.6 ± 22.8), and mild financial stress (26 ± 10). Poor FACT-O emotional well-being was associated with greater participant distress (P < .001). Partial correlational analyses revealed negative correlations between FACT-O-HRQOL and anxiety (r = -0.65, P < .001), depression (r = -0.76, P < .001), and total distress (r = -0.92, P < .001). Yet, high FACT-O-HRQOL was positively correlated with post-traumatic coping (r = 0.27; P = .006) and resilience (r = 0.63; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: ePRO assessment is feasible for identification of unique psychosocial factors, for example, financial toxicity and resilience, affecting HRQOL for OCS. Future investigation should explore large-scale, longitudinal ePRO assessment of the OCS psychosocial experience using innovative measures and community-based advocacy populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35985004      PMCID: PMC9470143          DOI: 10.1200/CCI.22.00035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform        ISSN: 2473-4276


  44 in total

Review 1.  The increasing value of eHealth in the delivery of patient-centred cancer care.

Authors:  Frank J Penedo; Laura B Oswald; Joshua P Kronenfeld; Sofia F Garcia; David Cella; Betina Yanez
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 41.316

2.  Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer.

Authors:  Teresa L Hagan; Sarah M Belcher; Heidi S Donovan
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 3.612

3.  Extensive financial hardship among gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy.

Authors:  Margaret I Liang; Maria Pisu; Sarah S Summerlin; Teresa K L Boitano; Christina T Blanchard; Smita Bhatia; Warner K Huh
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2019-11-23       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Breast cancer patient advocacy: A qualitative study of the challenges and opportunities for civil society organizations in low-income and middle-income countries.

Authors:  Allison Dvaladze; Darya A Kizub; Anna Cabanes; Gertrude Nakigudde; Bertha Aguilar; Jo Anne Zujewski; Catherine Duggan; Benjamin O Anderson; R K Pritam Singh; Julie R Gralow
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-ovarian.

Authors:  K Basen-Engquist; D Bodurka-Bevers; M A Fitzgerald; K Webster; D Cella; S Hu; D M Gershenson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-03-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Promoting Scientist-Advocate Collaborations in Cancer Research: Why and How.

Authors:  Jeannine M Salamone; Wanda Lucas; Shelley B Brundage; Jamie N Holloway; Sherri M Stahl; Nora E Carbine; Margery London; Naomi Greenwood; Rosa Goyes; Deborah Charles Chisholm; Erin Price; Roberta Carlin; Susan Winarsky; Kirsten B Baker; Julia Maues; Ayesha N Shajahan-Haq
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 12.701

7.  The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back.

Authors:  Bruce W Smith; Jeanne Dalen; Kathryn Wiggins; Erin Tooley; Paulette Christopher; Jennifer Bernard
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2008

Review 8.  Racial health disparities in ovarian cancer: not just black and white.

Authors:  Sanjeev K Srivastava; Aamir Ahmad; Orlandric Miree; Girijesh Kumar Patel; Seema Singh; Rodney P Rocconi; Ajay P Singh
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 4.234

9.  Hospital anxiety and depression scale cutoff scores for cancer patients in acute care.

Authors:  S Singer; S Kuhnt; H Götze; J Hauss; A Hinz; A Liebmann; O Krauss; A Lehmann; R Schwarz
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome: The validation of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST).

Authors:  Jonas A de Souza; Bonnie J Yap; Kristen Wroblewski; Victoria Blinder; Fabiana S Araújo; Fay J Hlubocky; Lauren H Nicholas; Jeremy M O'Connor; Bruce Brockstein; Mark J Ratain; Christopher K Daugherty; David Cella
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.