Shared decision-making and disease management in advanced cancer and chronic kidney disease using patient-reported outcome dashboards.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of a co-designed patient-reported outcome (PRO) clinical dashboard and estimate its impact on shared decision-making (SDM) and symptomatology in adults with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease (CKD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a clinical PRO dashboard within the Northwestern Medicine Patient-Reported Outcomes system, enhanced through co-design involving 20 diverse constituents. Using a single-group, pretest-posttest design, we evaluated the dashboard's use among patients with advanced cancer or CKD between June 2020 and January 2022. Eligible patients had a visit with a participating clinician, completed at least two dashboard-eligible visits, and consented to follow-up surveys. PROs were collected 72 h prior to visits, including measures for chronic condition management self-efficacy, health-related quality of life (PROMIS measures), and SDM (collaboRATE). Responses were integrated into the EHR dashboard and accessible to clinicians and patients. RESULTS: We recruited 157 participants: 66 with advanced cancer and 91 with CKD. There were significant improvements in SDM from baseline, as assessed by collaboRATE scores. The proportion of participants reporting the highest level of SDM on every collaboRATE item increased by 15 percentage points from baseline to 3 months, and 17 points between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Additionally, there was a clinically meaningful decrease in anxiety levels over study period (T-score baseline: 53; 3-month: 52; 6-month: 50; P < .001), with a standardized response mean (SRM) of -0.38 at 6 months. DISCUSSION: PRO clinical dashboards, developed and shared with patients, may enhance SDM and reduce anxiety among patients with advanced cancer and CKD.

Exploring the Relationship Among Financial Hardship, Anxiety, and Depression in Patients With Cancer: A Longitudinal Study.

PURPOSE: Financial hardship (FH) is a complex issue in cancer care, affecting material conditions, well-being, and coping behaviors. This study aimed to longitudinally examine FH, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and their associations while incorporating social determinants of health and health care cost covariates in a sample of patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study analyzed data from 2,305 participants from the Northwestern University Improving the Management of Symptoms during and following Cancer Treatment trial. Outcomes assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postbaseline included depressive symptoms, anxiety, and FH. Analysis involved random intercept cross-lagged panel models to explore between- and within-person effects, incorporating factors such as age, sex, insurance status, neighborhood area deprivation, health care charges, out-of-pocket costs, and health literacy. RESULTS: The cohort had a mean age of 60.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 12.7) years and was mostly female (64.9%) and White (86.2%). Correlations were found between FH and depressive symptoms (r = 0.310) and anxiety (r = 0.289). A predictive relationship was observed between FH and depressive symptoms, with baseline and 6-month depressive symptom levels predicting later FH (baseline ß = .079, P = .070; 6-month ß = .072, P = .081) and 9-month FH significantly predicting 12-month depressive symptoms (ß = .083, P = .025), even after accounting for health care charges and out-of-pocket costs. Baseline and 9-month anxiety showed a predictive relationship with subsequent FH (baseline ß = .097, P = .023; 9-month ß = .071, P = .068). CONCLUSION: FH emerged as a prominent issue, with nearly half of participants experiencing some level of FH. Depressive symptoms and anxiety were related to FH. These findings underscore the need for a comprehensive approach in cancer care that concurrently addresses anxiety, depressive symptoms, and FH, recognizing their interconnected impact.

Development of an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported outcome-based shared decision-making dashboard in oncology.

Objectives: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) describe a patient's unique experiences with disease or treatment, yet effective use of this information during clinical encounters remains challenging. This project sought to build a PRO based dashboard within the electronic health record (EHR), prioritizing interpretability and utility of PROs for clinical decision-making. Materials and Methods: Codesign principles were used to define the goal, features, and visualization of the data elements on the dashboard. Codesign sessions occurred between February 2019 and May 2020 and involved a diverse group of stakeholders. Pilot evaluation of dashboard usability was performed with patients and clinicians not involved in the codesign process through qualitative interviews and the Systems Usability Scale. Results: The dashboard was placed into a single tab in the EHR and included select PROM scores, clinical data elements, and goals of care questions. Real-time data analytics and enhanced visualization of data was necessary for the dashboard to provide meaningful feedback to clinicians and patients for decision-making during clinic visits. During soft launch, the dashboard demonstrated "good" usability in patients and clinicians at 3 and 6 months (mean total SUS score >70). Discussion: The current dashboard had good usability and made PRO scores more clinically understandable to patients and clinicians. This paper highlights the development, necessary data elements, and workflow considerations to implement this dashboard at an academic cancer center. Conclusion: As the use of PROs in clinical care is increasing, patient- and clinician-centered tools are needed to ensure that this information is used in meaningful ways.

Implementation of a Co-Design Strategy to Develop a Dashboard to Support Shared Decision Making in Advanced Cancer and Chronic Kidney Disease.

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is the process by which patients and clinicians exchange information and preferences to come to joint healthcare decisions. Clinical dashboards can support SDM by collecting, distilling, and presenting critical information, such as patient-reported outcomes (PROs), to be shared at points of care and in between appointments. We describe the implementation strategies and outcomes of a multistakeholder collaborative process known as "co-design" to develop a PRO-informed clinical dashboard to support SDM for patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: Across 14 sessions, two multidisciplinary teams comprising patients, care partners, clinicians, and other stakeholders iteratively co-designed an SDM dashboard for either advanced cancer (N = 25) or CKD (N = 24). Eligible patients, care partners, and frontline clinicians were identified by six physician champions. The co-design process included four key steps: (1) define "the problem", (2) establish context of use, (3) build a consensus on design, and (4) define and test specifications. We also evaluated our success in implementing the co-design strategy using measures of fidelity, acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and effectiveness which were collected throughout the process. Results: Mean (M) scores across implementation measures of the co-design process were high, including observer-rated fidelity and adoption of co-design practices (M = 19.1 on a 7-21 scale, N = 36 ratings across 9 sessions), as well as acceptability based on the perceived degree of SDM that occurred during the co-design process (M = 10.4 on a 0 to 12 adapted collaboRATE scale). Capturing the feasibility and adoption of convening multistakeholder co-design teams, min-max normalized scores (ranging from 0 to 1) of stakeholder representation demonstrated that, on average, 95% of stakeholder types were represented for cancer sessions (M = 0.95) and 85% for CKD sessions (M = 0.85). The co-design process was rated as either "fully" or "partially" effective by 100% of respondents, in creating a dashboard that met its intended objective. Conclusions: A co-design process was successfully implemented to develop SDM clinical dashboards for advanced cancer and CKD care. We discuss key strategies and learnings from this process that may aid others in the development and uptake of patient-centered healthcare innovations.

A mixed methods evaluation of patient perspectives on the implementation of an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: As cancer centers have increased focus on patient-centered, evidenced-based care, implementing efficient programs that facilitate effective patient-clinician communication remains critical. We implemented an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes). To aid evaluation of cPRO implementation, we asked patients receiving care in one of three geographical regions of an academic healthcare system about their experiences. METHODS: Using a sequential mixed-methods approach, we collected feedback in two waves. Wave 1 included virtual focus groups and interviews with patients who had completed cPRO. In Wave 2, we administered a structured survey to systematically examine Wave 1 themes. All participants had a diagnosed malignancy and received at least 2 invitations to complete cPRO. We used rapid and traditional qualitative methods to analyze Wave 1 data and focused on identifying facilitators and barriers to cPRO implementation. Wave 2 data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Participants (n = 180) were on average 62.9 years old; were majority female, White, non-Hispanic, and married; and represented various cancer types and phases of treatment. Wave 1 participants (n = 37) identified facilitators, including cPRO's perceived value and favorable usability, and barriers, including confusion about cPRO's purpose and various considerations for responding. High levels of clinician engagement with, and patient education on, cPRO were described as facilitators while low levels were described as barriers. Wave 2 (n = 143) data demonstrated high endorsement rates of cPRO's usability on domains such as navigability (91.6%), comprehensibility (98.7%), and relevance (82.4%). Wave 2 data also indicated low rates of understanding cPRO's purpose (56.7%), education from care teams about cPRO (22.5%), and discussing results of cPRO with care teams (16.3%). CONCLUSIONS: While patients reported high value and ease of use when completing cPRO, they also reported areas of confusion, emphasizing the importance of patient education on the purpose and use of cPRO and clinician engagement to sustain participation. These results guided successful implementation changes and will inform future improvements.

A Framework for Integrating Telehealth Equitably across the cancer care continuum.

The COVID-19 pandemic placed a spotlight on the potential to dramatically increase the use of telehealth across the cancer care continuum, but whether and how telehealth can be implemented in practice in ways that reduce, rather than exacerbate, inequities are largely unknown. To help fill this critical gap in research and practice, we developed the Framework for Integrating Telehealth Equitably (FITE), a process and evaluation model designed to help guide equitable integration of telehealth into practice. In this manuscript, we present FITE and showcase how investigators across the National Cancer Institute's Telehealth Research Centers of Excellence are applying the framework in different ways to advance digital and health equity. By highlighting multilevel determinants of digital equity that span further than access alone, FITE highlights the complex and differential ways structural determinants restrict or enable digital equity at the individual and community level. As such, achieving digital equity will require strategies designed to not only support individual behavior but also change the broader context to ensure all patients and communities have the choice, opportunity, and resources to use telehealth across the cancer care continuum.

Scalable Telehealth Cancer Care: integrated healthy lifestyle program to live well after cancer treatment.

Northwestern University's Center for Scalable Telehealth Cancer Care (STELLAR) is 1 of 4 Cancer Moonshot Telehealth Research Centers of Excellence programs funded by the National Cancer Institute to establish an evidence base for telehealth in cancer care. STELLAR is grounded in the Institute of Medicine's vision that quality cancer care includes not only disease treatment but also promotion of long-term health and quality of life (QOL). Cigarette smoking, insufficient physical activity, and overweight and obesity often co-occur and are associated with poorer treatment response, heightened recurrence risk, decreased longevity, diminished QOL, and increased treatment cost for many cancers. These risk behaviors are prevalent in cancer survivors, but their treatment is not routinely integrated into oncology care. STELLAR aims to foster patients' long-term health and QOL by designing, implementing, and sustaining a novel telehealth treatment program for multiple risk behaviors to be integrated into standard cancer care. Telehealth delivery is evidence-based for health behavior change treatment and is well suited to overcome access and workflow barriers that can otherwise impede treatment receipt. This paper describes STELLAR's 2-arm randomized parallel group pragmatic clinical trial comparing telehealth-delivered, coach-facilitated multiple risk behavior treatment vs self-guided usual care for the outcomes of reach, effectiveness, and cost among 3000 cancer survivors who have completed curative intent treatment. This paper also discusses several challenges encountered by the STELLAR investigative team and the adaptations developed to move the research forward.

ECOG-ACRIN EAZ171: Prospective Validation Trial of Germline Predictors of Taxane-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Black Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Black women experience higher rates of taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) compared with White women when receiving adjuvant once weekly paclitaxel for early-stage breast cancer, leading to more dose reductions and higher recurrence rates. EAZ171 aimed to prospectively validate germline predictors of TIPN and compare rates of TIPN and dose reductions in Black women receiving (neo)adjuvant once weekly paclitaxel and once every 3 weeks docetaxel for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Women with early-stage breast cancer who self-identified as Black and had intended to receive (neo)adjuvant once weekly paclitaxel or once every 3 weeks docetaxel were eligible, with planned accrual to 120 patients in each arm. Genotyping was performed to determine germline neuropathy risk. Grade 2-4 TIPN by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 was compared between high- versus low-risk genotypes and between once weekly paclitaxel versus once every 3 weeks docetaxel within 1 year. Patient-rated TIPN and patient-reported outcomes were compared using patient-reported outcome (PRO)-CTCAE and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty of 249 enrolled patients had genotype data, and 91 of 117 (77.8%) receiving once weekly paclitaxel and 87 of 118 (73.7%) receiving once every 3 weeks docetaxel were classified as high-risk. Physician-reported grade 2-4 TIPN was not significantly different in high- versus low-risk genotype groups with once weekly paclitaxel (47% v 35%; P = .27) or with once every 3 weeks docetaxel (28% v 19%; P = .47). Grade 2-4 TIPN was significantly higher in the once weekly paclitaxel versus once every 3 weeks docetaxel arm by both physician-rated CTCAE (45% v 29%; P = .02) and PRO-CTCAE (40% v 24%; P = .03). Patients receiving once weekly paclitaxel required more dose reductions because of TIPN (28% v 9%; P < .001) or any cause (39% v 25%; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Germline variation did not predict risk of TIPN in Black women receiving (neo)adjuvant once weekly paclitaxel or once every 3 weeks docetaxel. Once weekly paclitaxel was associated with significantly more grade 2-4 TIPN and required more dose reductions than once every 3 weeks docetaxel.

Advancing survivorship at a comprehensive cancer center: integrating clinical care, education and research initiatives at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The unprecedented and growing number of cancer survivors requires comprehensive quality care that includes cancer surveillance, symptom management, and health promotion to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve quality of life. However, coordinated and sustainable survivorship care has been challenged by barriers at multiple levels. We outline the survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center that have evolved over two decades. Our current survivorship clinics comprise STAR (Survivors Taking Action and Responsibility) for adult survivors of childhood cancers; Adult Specialty Survivorship for survivors of breast, colorectal and testicular cancers, lymphomas, and leukemias; and Gynecologic Oncology Survivorship. Care provision models align with general, disease/treatment-specific, and integrated survivorship models, respectively. Reimbursement for survivorship services has been bolstered by institutional budget allocations. We have standardized survivor education, counseling, and referrals through electronic health record (EHR)-integrated survivorship care plan (SCP) templates that incorporate partial auto-population. We developed EHR-integrated data collection tools (e.g., dashboards; SmartForm, and registry) to facilitate data analytics, personalized patient referrals, and reports to the Commission on Cancer (CoC). We report to the CoC on SCP delivery, dietitian encounters, and DEXA scans. For the last decade, our Cancer Survivorship Institute has aligned the efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators. The institute promotes evidence-based care, high-impact research, and state-of-the-science educational programs for professionals, survivors, and the community. Future plans include expansion of clinical services and funding for applied research centered on the unique needs of post-treatment cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center underscore the imperative for comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable survivorship care to address the needs of increasing numbers of cancer survivors, with a focus on evidence-based clinical practices, associated research, and educational initiatives.

Adjuvant platinum versus capecitabine for residual, invasive, triple-negative breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in ECOG-ACRIN EA1131.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a better tool for evaluating the experiences of patients who have symptomatic, treatment-associated adverse events (AEs) compared with clinician-rated AEs. The authors present PROs assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment-related neurotoxicity for adjuvant capecitabine versus platinum on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) EA1131 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02445391). METHODS: Participants completed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale (platinum arm only) at baseline, cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1), 6 months, and 15 months. Because of early termination, power was insufficient to test the hypothesis that HRQoL, as assessed by the NFBSI-16 treatment side-effect (TSE) subscale, would be better at 6 and 15 months in the capecitabine arm; all analyses were exploratory. Means were compared by using t-tests or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and proportions were compared by using the χ2 test. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-six of 330 eligible patients provided PROs. The mean NFBSI-16 TSE subscale score was lower for the platinum arm at baseline (p = .02; absolute difference, 0.6 points) and for the capecitabine arm at C3D1 (p = .04; absolute difference, 0.5 points), but it did not differ at other times. The mean change in TSE subscale scores differed between the arms from baseline to C3D1 (platinum arm, 0.15; capecitabine arm, -0.72; p = .03), but not from baseline to later time points. The mean decline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale scores exceeded the minimal meaningful change (1.38 points) from baseline to each subsequent time point (all p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the similar frequency of clinician-rated AEs, PROs identified greater on-treatment symptom burden with capecitabine and complemented clinician-rated AEs by characterizing patients' experiences during chemotherapy.

Systematic symptom management in the IMPACT Consortium: rationale and design for 3 effectiveness-implementation trials.

Cancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium's conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS): feasibility, usability, and pilot testing of a novel method.

BACKGROUND: Systematic approaches are needed to accurately characterize the dynamic use of implementation strategies and how they change over time. We describe the development and preliminary evaluation of the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS), a novel methodology to document and characterize implementation strategies use over time. METHODS: The development and initial evaluation of the LISTS method was conducted within the Improving the Management of SymPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Research Consortium (supported by funding provided through the NCI Cancer MoonshotSM). The IMPACT Consortium includes a coordinating center and three hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies testing routine symptom surveillance and integration of symptom management interventions in ambulatory oncology care settings. LISTS was created to increase the precision and reliability of dynamic changes in implementation strategy use over time. It includes three components: (1) a strategy assessment, (2) a data capture platform, and (3) a User's Guide. An iterative process between implementation researchers and practitioners was used to develop, pilot test, and refine the LISTS method prior to evaluating its use in three stepped-wedge trials within the IMPACT Consortium. The LISTS method was used with research and practice teams for approximately 12 months and subsequently we evaluated its feasibility, acceptability, and usability using established instruments and novel questions developed specifically for this study. RESULTS: Initial evaluation of LISTS indicates that it is a feasible and acceptable method, with content validity, for characterizing and tracking the use of implementation strategies over time. Users of LISTS highlighted several opportunities for improving the method for use in future and more diverse implementation studies. CONCLUSIONS: The LISTS method was developed collaboratively between researchers and practitioners to fill a research gap in systematically tracking implementation strategy use and modifications in research studies and other implementation efforts. Preliminary feedback from LISTS users indicate it is feasible and usable. Potential future developments include additional features, fewer data elements, and interoperability with alternative data entry platforms. LISTS offers a systematic method that encourages the use of common data elements to support data analysis across sites and synthesis across studies. Future research is needed to further adapt, refine, and evaluate the LISTS method in studies with employ diverse study designs and address varying delivery settings, health conditions, and intervention types.

Using IT to Improve Outcomes for Children Living With Cancer (SyMon-SAYS): Protocol for a Single-Institution Waitlist Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents with cancer may experience multiple disease- and treatment-related symptoms that negatively affect health-related quality of life. Routine symptom surveillance thus constitutes an important component of supportive care in pediatric oncology. The Symptom Monitoring and Systematic Assessment and Reporting System in Young Survivors (SyMon-SAYS) system will administer, score, interpret, and display the results of symptom assessments captured weekly using patient-reported outcomes presented via the electronic health record (EHR) portal between clinic visits in oncology ambulatory settings, when patients are likely to be more symptomatic. This study is testing a digital system for routine symptom surveillance that includes EHR-based reports to clinicians and alerts for severe symptoms. OBJECTIVE: In this randomized trial, we are examining the effects of the SyMon-SAYS system on perceived barriers to symptom management, self-efficacy, and symptom severity. Better self-management and timely clinical intervention to address symptoms promote adherence to treatment plans, strengthen child and parent self-efficacy, improve interactions between children, parents, and their clinical providers, and optimize clinical outcomes. METHODS: The SyMon-SAYS system is integrated into the EHR to streamline the presentation of symptom scores and delivery of alerts for severe symptoms to clinicians using EHR (Epic) messaging functionalities. Children (aged 8 to 17 years) complete the weekly symptom assessment and review the symptom report by logging into the patient portal (Epic MyChart). This single-institution waitlist randomized controlled trial is recruiting 200 children (aged 8-17 years) with cancer and their parents, guardians, or caregivers. Participating dyads are randomly assigned to receive the intervention over 16 weeks (Group A: 16-week SyMon-SAYS intervention; Group B: 8-week usual care and then an 8-week SyMon-SAYS intervention). Analyses will (1) evaluate the efficacy of SyMon-SAYS at week 8 and the maintenance of those effects at week 16; (2) evaluate factors associated with those efficacy outcomes, including contextual factors, adherence to the SyMon-SAYS intervention, demographic characteristics, and clinical factors; and (3) evaluate predictors of adherence to the SyMon-SAYS intervention and preference of SyMon-SAYS versus usual care. RESULTS: Data collection is currently in progress. We hypothesize that at 8 weeks, those receiving the SyMon-SAYS intervention will report decreased parent-perceived barriers to managing their children's symptoms, increased parent and child self-efficacy, decreased child symptom burden, and ultimately better child health-related quality of life, compared to waitlist controls. Feasibility, acceptability, and engagement from the perspectives of the children with cancer, their parents, and their clinicians will be examined using mixed methods. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that this system will facilitate prompt identification of problematic symptoms. Additionally, we hypothesize that with the availability of graphical symptom reports over time, and timely provider responses, children or parents will become better informed and take an active role in managing their symptoms, which will further improve clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04789720; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04789720. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50993.

Positive and negative psychosocial impacts on cancer survivors.

The purpose of this study is to understand psychosocial impacts on cancer survivors using the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) Psychosocial Illness Impact banks. Cancer survivors (n = 509; age: 59.5 ± 1.4; 51.5% men) completed the PROMIS positive and negative illness impact items consisting of four sub-domains: self-concept (SC), social impact (SI), stress response (SR), and spirituality (Sp). Illness impact was defined as changed scores from items measuring "current" experiences to recalled experiences prior to cancer diagnosis. Descriptive statistics, effect sizes (ES), and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated at item and sub-domain levels. Analysis of variance was used to identify potentially influential factors on the impacts. Our study found survivors reported stronger positive than negative impacts (overall ES mean: 0.30 vs. 0.23) in general; and more moderate (ES ≧ 0.30) positive than negative impacts at the item level, 54.3% (25 of 46) and 40% (16 of 40) for positive and negative items, respectively. Participants reported more positive impacts on SI and Sp but more negative impacts on SR. The CV results showed more individual differences appeared on positive SC items. Younger survivors reported stronger positive and negative impacts. Women reported higher positive impacts. Survivors with higher education levels tended to have higher positive SI impacts, while those with a lower family income reported higher negative SI and negative SR impacts. We conclude positive and negative psychosocial impacts coexisted-the strength of impacts varied across sub-domains. Age, gender, education, and family income influenced the psychosocial impacts reported by survivors. These findings provide a foundation to develop interventions to strengthen positive and minimize negative impacts and improve cancer survivors' overall well-being.

Adverse COVID-19 experiences and health-related quality of life in cancer survivors: indirect effects of COVID-19-related depression and financial burden.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are at greater risk for poor health outcomes due to COVID-19. However, the pandemic's impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is not well known. This study hypothesized that cancer survivors' adverse COVID-19 experiences would be associated with worse HRQoL. Further, this association would be moderated by psychosocial resiliency factors (perceived social support, benefits, and ability to manage stress) and mediated by psychosocial risk factors (anxiety, depression; health, financial and social concerns). METHODS: 1,043 cancer survivors receiving care at Northwestern Medicine completed a cross-sectional survey on COVID-19 practical and psychosocial concerns from 6/2021 to 3/2022. Participants reported on 21 adverse COVID-19 experiences (e.g., COVID-19 hospitalization, death of family/friends, loss of income, medical delays). The survey assessed 9 psychosocial factors related to COVID-19: anxiety, depression; health care, financial, and social disruptions; health care satisfaction; social support, perceived benefits, and stress management skills. The FACT-G7 assessed HRQoL. Hypotheses were tested in a structural equation model. The number of reported adverse COVID-19 experiences was the primary (observed) independent variable. The dependent variable of HRQoL, and the proposed mediating and moderating factors, were entered as latent variables indicated by their respective survey items. Latent interaction terms between the independent variable and each resiliency factor tested moderation effects. Analyses were adjusted for demographic and COVID-specific variables. RESULTS: Participants were, on average, aged 58 years and diagnosed with cancer 4.9 years prior. They were majority female (73.3%), White (89.6%), non-Hispanic/Latino (94.5%), college-educated (81.7%), and vaccinated for COVID-19 (95.5%). An average of 3.8 adverse COVID-19 experiences were reported. Results of structural equation modeling demonstrated that the association between adverse COVID-19 experiences and HRQoL was explained by indirect effects through COVID-19-related depression (ß = - 0.10, percentile bootstrap 95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.07) and financial concerns (ß = - 0.04, percentile bootstrap 95% CI - 0.07 to - 0.01). Hypotheses testing moderation by resiliency factors were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse COVID-19 experiences were associated with higher depression symptoms and financial concerns about COVID-19, and in turn, worse HRQoL. Oncology clinics should be cognizant of the experience of adverse COVID-19 events when allocating depression and financial support resources.

We conducted an online survey of cancer survivors receiving treatment at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois. Participants responded to a list of 21 adverse experiences related to the pandemic, such as COVID-19 hospitalization, death of family/friends, loss of income, and medical delays. They also responded to questionnaires measuring their degree of anxiety, depression, daily disruptions, health disruptions, financial disruptions, social support, perceived benefits, and ability to manage stress during the pandemic. Lastly, they responded to a questionnaire on health-related quality of life, capturing their physical symptoms, emotional symptoms, and satisfaction with life. Our survey found that people who had a greater number of adverse COVID-19 experiences had higher levels of depression and financial burden, which in turn was associated with worse health-related quality of life.

Implementation and evaluation of an expanded electronic health record-integrated bilingual electronic symptom management program across a multi-site Comprehensive Cancer Center: The NU IMPACT protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer experience symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Despite existing interventions and clinical guidelines, timely symptom management remains uneven in oncology care. We describe a study to implement and evaluate an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated symptom monitoring and management program in adult outpatient cancer care. METHODS: Our cancer patient-reported outcomes (cPRO) symptom monitoring and management program is a customized EHR-integrated installation. We will implement cPRO across all Northwestern Memorial HealthCare (NMHC) hematology/oncology clinics. We will conduct a cluster randomized modified stepped-wedge trial to evaluate patient and clinician engagement with cPRO. Further, we will embed a patient-level randomized clinical trial to evaluate the impact of an additional enhanced care (EC; cPRO plus web-based symptom self-management intervention) relative to usual care (UC; cPRO alone). The project uses a Type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation approach. The intervention will be implemented across seven regional clusters within the healthcare system comprising 32 clinic sites. A 6-month prospective pre-implementation enrollment period will be followed by a post-implementation enrollment period, during which newly enrolled, consenting patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to EC or UC. We will follow patients for 12 months post-enrollment. Patients randomized to EC will receive evidence-based symptom-management content on cancer-related concerns and approaches to enhance quality of life, using a web-based tool ("MyNM Care Corner"). This design allows for within- and between-site evaluation of implementation plus a group-based comparison to demonstrate effectiveness on patient-level outcomes. DISCUSSION: The project has potential to guide implementation of future healthcare system-level cancer symptom management programs. http://ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT03988543.

Effectiveness and implementation of an electronic health record-integrated digital health intervention for managing depressive symptoms in ambulatory oncology: The My Well-Being Guide study rationale and protocol.

BACKGROUND: Rates of clinically elevated depressive symptoms among ambulatory oncology patients are higher than in the general population and are associated with poorer health-related quality of life. Furthermore, a reduction in depressive symptoms may be associated with improved cancer survival. Several interventions have demonstrated efficacy in reducing oncologic depressive symptoms, including cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM). However, more work is needed to understand how to best implement CBSM into practice, such as through stepped-care approaches and digital health interventions linked to electronic health records (EHR). This manuscript presents the protocol of the My Well-Being Guide study, a pragmatic type 1 effectiveness-implementation hybrid study. This trial will test the effectiveness of My Well-Being Guide, a seven-week structured, CBSM-based digital health intervention designed to reduce depressive symptoms. This trial will also evaluate My Well-Being Guide's implementation across two health systems. METHODS: The final sample (N = 4561) will be oncology patients at Northwestern Medicine or University of Miami Health System who are ≥18 years of age; have a cancer diagnosis; elevated depressive symptoms on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression; and primary language is English or Spanish. Data collection will occur at baseline, and 2-, 6-, and 12-months post baseline. Outcome domains include depressive symptoms and implementation evaluation. DISCUSSION: This study may provide valuable data on the effectiveness of our depressive symptom management digital health intervention linked to the EHR and the scalability of digital health interventions in general.

Symptoms and Needs Monitoring in Diverse Ambulatory Oncology Patients: Usage Characteristics and Impact on Emergency Room Visits and Hospitalization.

PURPOSE: Symptoms and needs monitoring using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is associated with improved clinical outcomes in cancer care. However, these improvements have been observed predominantly in non-Hispanic White patients using English assessments with high completion rates. The documented impact of such monitoring on system-level outcomes including emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations remains limited. We explored factors affecting the completion of PRO measures and evaluated clinical outcomes in an ambulatory oncology setting with a diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis (October 2019-February 2022) was performed for patients with cancer assigned to My Wellness Check (MWC), a patient-portal-administered and electronic health record-based PRO assessment that generates automated alerts to oncology providers. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected. Logistic regression models examined factors affecting the completion of MWC questionnaires. Cumulative incidence of ER visits and hospitalization were assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusting for demographics. RESULTS: We identified 9,553 patients; 43.1% (n = 4,117) answered one or more questions. Patients age 65 years or older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.77; P < .0001), male (aOR, 0.81; P < .0001), Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (aOR, 0.70; P < .0001), living without partners (aOR, 0.75; P < .0001), or receiving no treatment (aOR, 0.76; P < .0001) were less likely to answer MWC questionnaires. Patients who completed the entire MWC questionnaires had a reduced risk of an ER visit (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; P < .0001) and hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .0007) relative to patients who did not. CONCLUSION: Completing electronic health record-based PRO assessments was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes in a diverse cancer population. Specific patient groups were less likely to participate. Further research is needed to identify barriers to completing PRO measures and the long-term benefits of such programs.

Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboards Within the Electronic Health Record to Support Shared Decision-making: Protocol for Co-design and Clinical Evaluation With Patients With Advanced Cancer and Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes-symptoms, treatment side effects, and health-related quality of life-are important to consider in chronic illness care. The increasing availability of health IT to collect patient-reported outcomes and integrate results within the electronic health record provides an unprecedented opportunity to support patients' symptom monitoring, shared decision-making, and effective use of the health care system. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to co-design a dashboard that displays patient-reported outcomes along with other clinical data (eg, laboratory tests, medications, and appointments) within an electronic health record and conduct a longitudinal demonstration trial to evaluate whether the dashboard is associated with improved shared decision-making and disease management outcomes. METHODS: Co-design teams comprising study investigators, patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians will collaborate to develop the dashboard. Investigators will work with clinic staff to implement the co-designed dashboard for clinical testing during a demonstration trial. The primary outcome of the demonstration trial is whether the quality of shared decision-making increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal changes in satisfaction with care, self-efficacy in managing treatments and symptoms, health-related quality of life, and use of costly and potentially avoidable health care services. Implementation outcomes (ie, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, reach, adoption, and sustainability) during the co-design process and demonstration trial will also be collected and summarized. RESULTS: The dashboard co-design process was completed in May 2020, and data collection for the demonstration trial is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022. The results will be disseminated in at least one manuscript per study objective. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol combines stakeholder engagement, health care coproduction frameworks, and health IT to develop a clinically feasible model of person-centered care delivery. The results will inform our current understanding of how best to integrate patient-reported outcome measures into clinical workflows to improve outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and health care systems. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38461.

Protocol for a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study expanding, implementing and evaluating electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom monitoring in a multisite cancer centre.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer symptom monitoring and management interventions can address concerns that may otherwise go undertreated. However, such programmes and their evaluations remain largely limited to trials versus healthcare systemwide applications. We previously developed and piloted an electronic patient-reported symptom and need assessment ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes) within the electronic health record (EHR). This study will expand cPRO implementation to medical oncology clinics across a large healthcare system. We will conduct a formal evaluation via a stepped wedge trial with a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Aim 1 comprises a mixed method evaluation of cPRO implementation. Adult outpatients will complete cPRO assessments (pain, fatigue, physical function, depression, anxiety and supportive care needs) before medical oncology visits. Results are available in the EHR; severe symptoms and endorsed needs trigger clinician notifications. We will track implementation strategies using the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System. Aim 2 will evaluate cPRO's impact on patient and system outcomes over 12 months via (a) a quality improvement study (n=4000 cases) and (b) a human subjects substudy (n=1000 patients). Aim 2a will evaluate EHR-documented healthcare usage and patient satisfaction. In aim 2b, participating patients will complete patient-reported healthcare utilisation and quality, symptoms and health-related quality of life measures at baseline, 6 and 12 months. We will analyse data using generalised linear mixed models and estimate individual trajectories of patient-reported symptom scores at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Using growth mixture modelling, we will characterise the overall trajectories of each symptom. Aim 3 will identify cPRO implementation facilitators and barriers via mixed methods research gathering feedback from stakeholders. Patients (n=50) will participate in focus groups or interviews. Clinicians and administrators (n=40) will complete surveys to evaluate implementation. We will graphically depict longitudinal implementation survey results and code qualitative data using directed content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (STU00207807). Findings will be disseminated via local and conference presentations and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04014751; ClinicalTrials.gov.