Cited by 110Cancer survivorship and careMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsElectronic Health Records Systems

eHealth System for Collecting and Utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care) Among Cancer Patients: Mixed Methods Approach to Evaluate Feasibility and Acceptability

Open access
Girgis, Afaf, Durcinoska, Ivana, Levesque, Janelle V, Gerges, Martha, Sandell, Tiffany, Arnold, Anthony, Delaney, Geoff P·2017·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite accumulating evidence indicating that collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and transferring results to the treating health professional in real time has the potential to improve patient well-being and cancer outcomes, this practice is not widespread. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of PROMPT-Care (Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care), a newly developed electronic health (eHealth) system that facilitates PRO data capture from cancer patients, data linkage and retrieval to support clinical decisions and patient self-management, and data retrieval to support ongoing evaluation and innovative research. METHODS: We developed an eHealth system in consultation with content-specific expert advisory groups and tested it with patients receiving treatment or follow-up care in two hospitals in New South Wales, Australia, over a 3-month period. Participants were recruited in clinic and completed self-report Web-based assessments either just before their upcoming clinical consultation or every 4 weeks if in follow-up care. A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of PROMPT-Care; data collected throughout the study informed the accuracy and completeness of data transfer procedures, and extent of missing data was determined from participants' assessments. Patients participated in cognitive interviews while completing their first assessment and completed evaluation surveys and interviews at study-end to assess system acceptability and usefulness of patient self-management resources, and oncology staff were interviewed at study-end to determine the acceptability and perceived usefulness of real-time PRO reporting. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients consented to the study; 7 patients were withdrawn before starting the intervention primarily because of changes in eligibility. Overall, 35 patients (13 on treatment and 22 in follow-up) completed 67 assessments during the study period. Mean completeness of patient-reported data was 93%, with 100% accuracy of data transfer. Ten patients completed cognitive interviews, 28 completed evaluation surveys, and 14 completed evaluation interviews at study-end. PROMPT-Care patient acceptability was high-100% (28/28) reported the time to complete the Web-based assessments (average 15 min) as about right, most willing to answer more questions (79%, 22/28 yes), 96% (27/28) found the Web-based assessment easier or same as completing a paper copy, and they valued the self-management resources . Oncology staff (n=5) also reported high acceptability and potential feasibility of the system. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and oncology staff found the PROMPT-Care system to be highly acceptable, and the results suggest that it would be feasible to implement it into an oncology setting. Suggested modifications to the patient assessment survey, clinician access to the reports, and system requirements will be made as part of the next stage of large-scale testing and future implementation of the system as part of routine care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261500135294; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=369299&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6lzylG5A0).

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 · 10.2196/jmir.8360

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. [1]Chen J Ou L Hollis SJ A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting BMC Health Serv Res 2013 13 211 10.1186/1472-6963-13-211 23758898 23758898 PMC3700832 · DOI
  2. [2]Ristevski E Regan M Jones R Breen S Batson A McGrail MR Cancer patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of a supportive care screening and referral process Health Expect 2015 6 18 3 406 18 10.1111/hex.12045 23369083 23369083 PMC5060790 · DOI
  3. [3]Mitchell AJ Screening for cancer-related distress: when is implementation successful and when is it unsuccessful? Acta Oncol 2013 2 52 2 216 24 10.3109/0284186X.2012.745949 23320770 23320770 · DOI
  4. [4]Mitchell AJ Vahabzadeh A Magruder K Screening for distress and depression in cancer settings: 10 lessons from 40 years of primary-care research Psychooncology 2011 6 20 6 572 84 10.1002/pon.1943 21442689 21442689 · DOI
  5. [7]Girgis A Delaney GP Arnold A Miller AA Levesque JV Kaadan N Carolan MG Cook N Masters K Tran TT Sandell T Durcinoska I Gerges M Avery S Ng W Della-Fiorentina S Dhillon HM Maher A Development and feasibility testing of prompt-care, an ehealth system for collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures for personalized treatment and care: a study protocol JMIR Res Protoc 2016 11 24 5 4 e227 10.2196/resprot.6459 27884813 27884813 PMC5146324 · DOI
  6. [8]Schuler T Miller AA PROsaiq: a smart device-based and emr-integrated system for patient-reported outcome measurement in routine cancer care J Radiat Oncol Inform 2014 1 6 1 111 131 10.5166/jroi-6-1-24 · DOI
  7. [9]Roth AJ Kornblith AB Batel-Copel L Peabody E Scher HI Holland JC Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study Cancer 1998 5 15 82 10 1904 8 9587123 9587123
  8. [11]Richardson LA Jones GW A review of the reliability and validity of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Curr Oncol 2009 1 16 1 55 19229371 PMC2644623 19229371
  9. [12]Girgis A Stojanovski E Boyes A King M Lecathelinais C The next generation of the supportive care needs survey: a brief screening tool for administration in the clinical oncology setting Psychooncology 2012 8 21 8 827 35 10.1002/pon.1973 21484938 21484938 · DOI
  10. [14]Castillo-Díaz M Padilla García JL How cognitive interviewing can provide validity evidence of the response processes to scale items Soc Indic Res 2013 114 3 963 975 10.1007/s11205-012-0184-8 · DOI
  11. [17]Kim H Park HC Yoon SM Kim TH Kim J Kang MK Jung J Kim SW Yea JW Park SH Park YS Evaluation of quality of life using a tablet PC-based survey in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a multi-institutional prospective randomized crossover comparison of paper and tablet PC-based questionnaires (KROG 12-01) Support Care Cancer 2016 10 24 10 4399 406 10.1007/s00520-016-3280-5 27220523 27220523 · DOI
  12. [18]Jensen RE Snyder CF Abernethy AP Basch E Potosky AL Roberts AC Loeffler DR Reeve BB Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care J Oncol Pract 2014 7 10 4 e215 22 10.1200/JOP.2013.001067 24301843 24301843 PMC4094646 · DOI
  13. [20]Lambert SD Girgis A Turner J Regan T Candler H Britton B Chambers S Lawsin C Kayser K “You need something like this to give you guidelines on what to do”: patients' and partners' use and perceptions of a self-directed coping skills training resource Support Care Cancer 2013 12 21 12 3451 60 10.1007/s00520-013-1914-4 23955024 23955024 · DOI
  14. [21]James EL Stacey FG Chapman K Boyes AW Burrows T Girgis A Asprey G Bisquera A Lubans DR Impact of a nutrition and physical activity intervention (ENRICH: Exercise and Nutrition Routine Improving Cancer Health) on health behaviors of cancer survivors and carers: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial BMC Cancer 2015 10 15 15 710 10.1186/s12885-015-1775-y 26471791 26471791 PMC4608129 · DOI
  15. [24]Mirkovic J Kaufman DR Ruland CM Supporting cancer patients in illness management: usability evaluation of a mobile app JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2014 2 3 e33 10.2196/mhealth.3359 25119490 25119490 PMC4147703 · DOI
  16. [25]Kamal AH Kavalieratos D Bull J Stinson CS Nicolla J Abernethy AP Usability and acceptability of the qdact-pc, an electronic point-of-care system for standardized quality monitoring in palliative care J Pain Symptom Manage 2015 11 50 5 615 21 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.05.013 26166184 26166184 PMC4846383 · DOI
  17. [26]Pickard KE Wainer AL Bailey KM Ingersoll BR A mixed-method evaluation of the feasibility and acceptability of a telehealth-based parent-mediated intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder Autism 2016 10 20 7 845 55 10.1177/1362361315614496 26862084 26862084 · DOI
  18. [27]Reichlin L Mani N McArthur K Harris AM Rajan N Dacso CC Assessing the acceptability and usability of an interactive serious game in aiding treatment decisions for patients with localized prostate cancer J Med Internet Res 2011 1 12 13 1 e4 10.2196/jmir.1519 21239374 21239374 PMC3221354 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Girgis, A., Durcinoska, I., Levesque, J. V., Gerges, M., Sandell, T., Arnold, A., & Delaney, G. P.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Ingham Institute (AU)
  • Wollongong Hospital (AU)
  • Liverpool Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Girgis, Afaf
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2017-10-02
Volume
19
Issue
10
Pages
e330
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2759941195
Cited by
110
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of New South Wales
  • University of Wollongong
  • Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research
  • Western Sydney University
  • Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
patient-reported outcomes, e-health systems, cancer patients, personalized treatment, real-time data transmission, patient self-management, feasibility, acceptability, online assessment, data linkage, oncology staff, cognitive interviewing, missing data, clinical decision support, follow-up care, patient-reported outcome measures, data accuracy and completeness
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Delivery of Health Care, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Internet, Precision Medicine

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