Cancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer

Abstract Background and aim Patient activation (PA) and Patient Involvement (PI) are considered elements in good survivorship. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a follow-up supported by electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) on PA and PI. Method From February 2017 to January 2019, we conducted...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Sissel Ravn, Henriette Vind Thaysen, Victor Jilbert Verwaal, HIPEC ePRO collaborative at Aarhus University Hospital, Lene Seibæk, Lene Hjerrild Iversen
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	SpringerOpen 2021
Materias:	Patient involvement Patient activation Advanced cancer Patient-reported outcomes Follow-up Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/ccd815fa27b8452d83b2a7c0c3d7f3c0
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:ccd815fa27b8452d83b2a7c0c3d7f3c0
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:ccd815fa27b8452d83b2a7c0c3d7f3c02021-11-14T12:28:54ZCancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer10.1186/s41687-021-00391-12509-8020https://doaj.org/article/ccd815fa27b8452d83b2a7c0c3d7f3c02021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00391-1https://doaj.org/toc/2509-8020Abstract Background and aim Patient activation (PA) and Patient Involvement (PI) are considered elements in good survivorship. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a follow-up supported by electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) on PA and PI. Method From February 2017 to January 2019, we conducted an explorative interventional study. We included 187 patients followed after intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer at two different Departments at a University Hospital. Prior to each follow-up consultation, patients used the ePRO to screen themselves for clinical important symptoms, function and needs. The ePRO was graphically presented to the clinician during the follow-up, aiming to facilitate patient activation and involvement in each follow-up. PA was measured by the Patient Activation Measurement (PAM), while PI was measured by five indicator questions. PAM and PI data compared between (− ePRO) and interventional (+ ePRO) consultations. PAM data were analysed using a linear mixed effect regression model with intervention (yes/no) and time along with the interaction between them as categorical fixed effects. The analyses were further adjusted for time (days) since surgery. Results According to our data, ePRO supported consultations did not improve PA. The average mean difference in PAM score between + ePRO and − ePRO consultations were − 0.2 (95% confidence interval − 2.6; 2.2, p = 0.9). There was no statistically significant improvement in PAM scores over time in neither + ePRO nor − ePRO group (p = 0.5). Based on the five PI-indicator questions, the majority of all consultations were evaluated as “some, much or very much” involved in consultation; providing a wider scope of dialogue, encouraged patients to ask questions and share their experiences and concerns. Nevertheless, another few patients reported not to be involved at all in the consultations. Conclusion We did not demonstrate evidence for ePRO supported consultations to improve patient activation, and patient activation did not improve over time. Our results generate the hypotheses that factors related to ePRO supported consultation had the potential to support PI by offering a wider scope of dialogue, and encourage patients to ask questions and share their experiences and concerns during follow-up.Sissel RavnHenriette Vind ThaysenVictor Jilbert VerwaalHIPEC ePRO collaborative at Aarhus University HospitalLene SeibækLene Hjerrild IversenSpringerOpenarticlePatient involvementPatient activationAdvanced cancerPatient-reported outcomesFollow-upPublic aspects of medicineRA1-1270ENJournal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, Vol 5, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Patient involvement Patient activation Advanced cancer Patient-reported outcomes Follow-up Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270
spellingShingle	Patient involvement Patient activation Advanced cancer Patient-reported outcomes Follow-up Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270 Sissel Ravn Henriette Vind Thaysen Victor Jilbert Verwaal HIPEC ePRO collaborative at Aarhus University Hospital Lene Seibæk Lene Hjerrild Iversen Cancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer
description	Abstract Background and aim Patient activation (PA) and Patient Involvement (PI) are considered elements in good survivorship. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a follow-up supported by electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) on PA and PI. Method From February 2017 to January 2019, we conducted an explorative interventional study. We included 187 patients followed after intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer at two different Departments at a University Hospital. Prior to each follow-up consultation, patients used the ePRO to screen themselves for clinical important symptoms, function and needs. The ePRO was graphically presented to the clinician during the follow-up, aiming to facilitate patient activation and involvement in each follow-up. PA was measured by the Patient Activation Measurement (PAM), while PI was measured by five indicator questions. PAM and PI data compared between (− ePRO) and interventional (+ ePRO) consultations. PAM data were analysed using a linear mixed effect regression model with intervention (yes/no) and time along with the interaction between them as categorical fixed effects. The analyses were further adjusted for time (days) since surgery. Results According to our data, ePRO supported consultations did not improve PA. The average mean difference in PAM score between + ePRO and − ePRO consultations were − 0.2 (95% confidence interval − 2.6; 2.2, p = 0.9). There was no statistically significant improvement in PAM scores over time in neither + ePRO nor − ePRO group (p = 0.5). Based on the five PI-indicator questions, the majority of all consultations were evaluated as “some, much or very much” involved in consultation; providing a wider scope of dialogue, encouraged patients to ask questions and share their experiences and concerns. Nevertheless, another few patients reported not to be involved at all in the consultations. Conclusion We did not demonstrate evidence for ePRO supported consultations to improve patient activation, and patient activation did not improve over time. Our results generate the hypotheses that factors related to ePRO supported consultation had the potential to support PI by offering a wider scope of dialogue, and encourage patients to ask questions and share their experiences and concerns during follow-up.
format	article
author	Sissel Ravn Henriette Vind Thaysen Victor Jilbert Verwaal HIPEC ePRO collaborative at Aarhus University Hospital Lene Seibæk Lene Hjerrild Iversen
author_facet	Sissel Ravn Henriette Vind Thaysen Victor Jilbert Verwaal HIPEC ePRO collaborative at Aarhus University Hospital Lene Seibæk Lene Hjerrild Iversen
author_sort	Sissel Ravn
title	Cancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer
title_short	Cancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer
title_full	Cancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer
title_fullStr	Cancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer
title_full_unstemmed	Cancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer
title_sort	cancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer
publisher	SpringerOpen
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/ccd815fa27b8452d83b2a7c0c3d7f3c0
work_keys_str_mv	AT sisselravn cancerfollowupsupportedbypatientreportedoutcomesinpatientsundergoingintendedcurativecomplexsurgeryforadvancedcancer AT henriettevindthaysen cancerfollowupsupportedbypatientreportedoutcomesinpatientsundergoingintendedcurativecomplexsurgeryforadvancedcancer AT victorjilbertverwaal cancerfollowupsupportedbypatientreportedoutcomesinpatientsundergoingintendedcurativecomplexsurgeryforadvancedcancer AT hipeceprocollaborativeataarhusuniversityhospital cancerfollowupsupportedbypatientreportedoutcomesinpatientsundergoingintendedcurativecomplexsurgeryforadvancedcancer AT leneseibæk cancerfollowupsupportedbypatientreportedoutcomesinpatientsundergoingintendedcurativecomplexsurgeryforadvancedcancer AT lenehjerrildiversen cancerfollowupsupportedbypatientreportedoutcomesinpatientsundergoingintendedcurativecomplexsurgeryforadvancedcancer
_version_	1718429194723000320

Cancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer

Ejemplares similares