Cited by 98Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsCancer survivorship and careHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

Wireless Monitoring Program of Patient-Centered Outcomes and Recovery Before and After Major Abdominal Cancer Surgery

Open access
Sun, Virginia, Dumitra, Sinziana, Ruel, Nora, Lee, Byrne, Melstrom, Laleh, Melstrom, Kurt, Woo, Yanghee, Sentovich, Stephen +2 more·2017·JAMA Surgery

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: A combined subjective and objective wireless monitoring program of patient-centered outcomes can be carried out in patients before and after major abdominal cancer surgery. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a proof-of-concept pilot study of a wireless, patient-centered outcomes monitoring program before and after major abdominal cancer surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this proof-of-concept pilot study, patients wore wristband pedometers and completed online patient-reported outcome surveys (symptoms and quality of life) 3 to 7 days before surgery, during hospitalization, and up to 2 weeks after discharge. Reminders via email were generated for all moderate to severe scores for symptoms and quality of life. Surgery-related data were collected via electronic medical records, and complications were calculated using the Clavien-Dindo classification. The study was carried out in the inpatient and outpatient surgical oncology unit of one National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Eligible patients were scheduled to undergo curative resection for hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal cancers, were English speaking, and were 18 years or older. Twenty participants were enrolled over 4 months. The study dates were April 1, 2015, to July 31, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included adherence to wearing the pedometer, adherence to completing the surveys (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory and EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system), and satisfaction with the monitoring program. RESULTS: This study included a final sample of 20 patients (median age, 55.5 years [range, 22-74 years]; 15 [75%] female) with evaluable data. Pedometer adherence (88% [17 of 20] before surgery vs 83% [16 of 20] after discharge) was higher than survey adherence (65% to 75% [13 of 20 and 15 of 20] completed). The median number of daily steps at day 7 was 1689 (19% of daily steps at baseline), which correlated with the Comprehensive Complication Index, for which the median was 15 of 100 (r = -0.64, P < .05). Postdischarge overall symptom severity (2.3 of 10) and symptom interference with activities (3.5 of 10) were mild. Pain (4.4 of 10), fatigue (4.7 of 10), and appetite loss (4.0 of 10) were moderate after surgery. Quality-of-life scores were lowest at discharge (66.6 of 100) but improved at week 2 (73.9 of 100). While patient-reported outcomes returned to baseline at 2 weeks, the number of daily steps was only one-third of preoperative baseline. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Wireless monitoring of combined subjective and objective patient-centered outcomes can be carried out in the surgical oncology setting. Preoperative and postoperative patient-centered outcomes have the potential of identifying high-risk populations who may need additional interventions to support postoperative functional and symptom recovery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.1519

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 98

Authors
Sun, V., Dumitra, S., Ruel, N., Lee, B., Melstrom, L., Melstrom, K., Woo, Y., Sentovich, S., Singh, G., & Fong, Y.
Affiliations
City Of Hope National Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sun, Virginia
Venue
JAMA Surgery
Published
2017-09-01
Volume
152
Issue
9
Pages
852
ISSN
2168-6254 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2622304196
Cited by
98
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
10.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA033572)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
wireless patient monitoring, patient-reported outcomes, abdominal cancer surgery, pedometers, wearable activity trackers, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, symptom monitoring, quality of life, fatigue, pain, hepatobiliary cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, patient satisfaction, MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, EORTC QLQ-C30, electronic health records, surgical oncology
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Gastrointestinal Neoplasms, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Recovery of Function, Wireless Technology, Patient Outcome Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review