Evaluating the implementation and impact of navigator-supported remote symptom monitoring and management: a protocol for a hybrid type 2 clinical trial
Open accessAbstract
Background: Symptoms in patients with advanced cancer are often inadequately captured during encounters with the healthcare team. Emerging evidence demonstrates that weekly electronic home-based patient-reported symptom monitoring with automated alerts to clinicians reduces healthcare utilization, improves health-related quality of life, and lengthens survival. However, oncology practices have lagged in adopting remote symptom monitoring into routine practice, where specific patient populations may have unique barriers. One approach to overcoming barriers is utilizing resources from value-based payment models, such as patient navigators who are ideally positioned to assume a leadership role in remote symptom monitoring implementation. This implementation approach has not been tested in standard of care, and thus optimal implementation strategies are needed for large-scale roll-out. Methods: This hybrid type 2 study design evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of remote symptom monitoring for all patients and for diverse populations in two Southern academic medical centers from 2021 to 2026. This study will utilize a pragmatic approach, evaluating real-world data collected during routine care for quantitative implementation and patient outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to conduct a qualitative evaluation at key time points to assess barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, fidelity to implementation strategies, and perceived utility of these strategies. We will use a mixed-methods approach for data interpretation to finalize a formal implementation blueprint. Discussion: This pragmatic evaluation of real-world implementation of remote symptom monitoring will generate a blueprint for future efforts to scale interventions across health systems with diverse patient populations within value-based healthcare models. Trial registration: NCT04809740 ; date of registration 3/22/2021.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Promoting value-based payment models can incentivize providers to deliver high-quality, cost-effective care, prioritizing patients with multiple chronic conditions.
“promoting value-based payment models can incentivize providers to deliver high-quality, cost-effective care, prioritizing patients with multiple chronic conditions.35,36”
From Program cost and return on investment analysis of remote patient monitoring for hypertension management in the cardiology department of a large healthcare system (2026) · cites this paper as [35]
The Background (page unavailable) says value-based oncology payment reform could support remote symptom monitoring, and the Discussion (page unavailable) describes aligned financial incentives. The paper also reports benefits of patient navigation, including reduced costs, but it does not say these payment models incentivize high-quality, cost-effective care specifically for patients with multiple chronic conditions. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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 53 · Cited by 27
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [44]Bartholomew Eldredge LK Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. Fourth edition. Ed 2016 San Francisco Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer Imprints, Wiley
- Authors
- Rocque, G. B., Dionne-Odom, J. N., Stover, A. M., Daniel, C. L., Azuero, A., Huang, C.-H. S., Ingram, S. A., Franks, J. A., Caston, N. E., Dent, D. A. N., Basch, E. M., Jackson, B. E., Howell, D., Weiner, B. J., & Pierce, J. Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- University of South Alabama (US)
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (CA)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rocque, Gabrielle B.
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMC Health Services Research
- Published
- 2022-04-22
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 538-538
- ISSN
- 1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9027833
- OpenAlex
- W4224285753
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 6.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR019058)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Keywords
- remote symptom monitoring, patient navigators, advanced cancer, symptom management, implementation research, value-based payment models, implementation barriers and facilitators, implementation fidelity, implementation blueprint, health-related quality of life, health care utilization
- MeSH terms
- Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Research Design, Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic
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