Cited by 20Cancer survivorship and careMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Implementing electronic patient-reported outcomes for patients with new oral chemotherapy prescriptions at an academic site and a community site

Doolin, Jim W., Berry, Jonathan L., Forbath, Natalia S., Tocci, Noah X., Dechen, Tenzin, Li, Stephanie, Hartwell, Rebekah A., Espiritu, Jennifer K. +3 more·2021·JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics

Abstract

PURPOSE: Oral chemotherapy challenges providers' abilities to safely monitor patients' symptoms, adherence, and financial toxicity. COVID-19 has increased the urgency of caring for patients remotely. Collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) has demonstrated efficacy for patients on intravenous chemotherapy, but limited data support their use in oral chemotherapy. We undertook a pilot project to assess the feasibility of implementing an ePRO system for patients starting oral chemotherapy at our cancer center, which includes both an academic site and a community site. METHODS: Patients initiating oral chemotherapy were asked to participate. A five-question tool was built in REDCap. Concerning responses triggered outreach within one business day. The primary outcome was time to first symptom assessment. For comparison, we used a historical cohort of patients who had been prescribed oral chemotherapies by providers in the same disease groups at the cancer center. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 62 (40%) patients completed ePRO assessments. Fifty historical charts were reviewed. Time to first symptom assessment was 7 days (IQR, 4-14 days) in the historical group compared with 3 days (IQR, 2-4 days) in the ePRO group. Time to clinical action was 14 days (7-35 days) in the historical group compared with 8 days (4-19 days) in the ePRO group. No statistically significant differences were detected in 30-day emergency department visit or hospitalization (12% for both groups) or 90-day emergency department visit or hospitalization rates (historical 28% and ePRO 20%). CONCLUSION: An ePRO tool monitoring patient concerns about adherence, cost, and toxicities for patients with new oral chemotherapy regimens is feasible and improves time to symptom assessment. Further investigation is needed to improve patient engagement with ePROs and evaluate the long-term impacts for patients on oral chemotherapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/cci.20.00191

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doolin, J. W., Berry, J. L., Forbath, N. S., Tocci, N. X., Dechen, T., Li, S., Hartwell, R. A., Espiritu, J. K., Roberts, D. A., Zerillo, J. A., & Shea, M.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Clovis Oncology (United States) (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
Venue
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
Published
2021-12
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
631-640
ISSN
2473-4276 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3170619927
Cited by
20
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
electronic patient-reported outcomes, oral chemotherapy, symptom monitoring, medication adherence, financial toxicity, REDCap, feasibility, emergency department visits, hospitalization, patient engagement
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Administration, Oral, Aged, Antineoplastic Agents, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Internet, Electronic Health Records

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