Association of Remote Patient-Reported Outcomes and Step Counts With Hospitalization or Death Among Patients With Advanced Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy: Secondary Analysis of the PROStep Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer undergoing chemotherapy experience significant symptoms and declines in functional status, which are associated with poor outcomes. Remote monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs; symptoms) and step counts (functional status) may proactively identify patients at risk of hospitalization or death. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the association of (1) longitudinal PROs with step counts and (2) PROs and step counts with hospitalization or death. METHODS: The PROStep randomized trial enrolled 108 patients with advanced gastrointestinal or lung cancers undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy at a large academic cancer center. Patients were randomized to weekly text-based monitoring of 8 PROs plus continuous step count monitoring via Fitbit (Google) versus usual care. This preplanned secondary analysis included 57 of 75 patients randomized to the intervention who had PRO and step count data. We analyzed the associations between PROs and mean daily step counts and the associations of PROs and step counts with the composite outcome of hospitalization or death using bootstrapped generalized linear models to account for longitudinal data. RESULTS: Among 57 patients, the mean age was 57 (SD 10.9) years, 24 (42%) were female, 43 (75%) had advanced gastrointestinal cancer, 14 (25%) had advanced lung cancer, and 25 (44%) were hospitalized or died during follow-up. A 1-point weekly increase (on a 32-point scale) in aggregate PRO score was associated with 247 fewer mean daily steps (95% CI -277 to -213; P<.001). PROs most strongly associated with step count decline were patient-reported activity (daily step change -892), nausea score (-677), and constipation score (524). A 1-point weekly increase in aggregate PRO score was associated with 20% greater odds of hospitalization or death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4; P=.01). PROs most strongly associated with hospitalization or death were pain (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.6-6.5; P<.001), decreased activity (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.1; P=.01), dyspnea (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2-5.5; P=.02), and sadness (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.3; P=.03). A decrease in 1000 steps was associated with 16% greater odds of hospitalization or death (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.3; P=.03). Compared with baseline, mean daily step count decreased 7% (n=274 steps), 9% (n=351 steps), and 16% (n=667 steps) in the 3, 2, and 1 weeks before hospitalization or death, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial among patients with advanced cancer, higher symptom burden and decreased step count were independently associated with and predictably worsened close to hospitalization or death. Future interventions should leverage longitudinal PRO and step count data to target interventions toward patients at risk for poor outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04616768; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04616768. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054675.

Clinician Perspectives on Virtual Specialty Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Illnesses.

Background: Patients with serious illnesses have unmet symptom and psychosocial needs. Specialty palliative care could address many of these needs; however, access varies by geography and health system. Virtual visits and automated referrals could increase access and lead to improved quality of life, health outcomes, and patient-centered care for patients with serious illness. Objectives: We sought to understand referring clinician perspectives on barriers and facilitators to utilizing virtual tools to increase upstream access to palliative care. Design: Participants in this multisite qualitative study included practicing clinicians who commonly place palliative care referrals across multiple specialties, including hematology/oncology, family medicine, cardiology, and geriatrics. All interviews were transcribed and subsequently coded and analyzed by trained research coordinators using Atlas.ti software. Settings/Subjects: This study included 23 clinicians (21 physicians, 2 nonphysicians) across 5 specialties, 4 practice settings, and 7 states in the United States. Results: Respondents felt that community-based specialty palliative services including symptom management, advance care planning, physical therapy, and mental health counseling would benefit their patients. However, they had mixed feelings about automated referrals, with some clinicians feeling hesitant about not being alerted to such referrals. Many respondents were supportive of virtual palliative care, particularly for those who may have difficulty accessing physician offices, but most respondents felt that such care should only be provided after an initial in-person consultation where clinicians can meet face-to-face with patients. Conclusion: Clinicians believe that automated referrals and virtual palliative care could increase access to the benefits of specialty palliative care. However, virtual palliative care models should give attention to iterative communication with primary clinicians and the perceived need for an initial in-person visit.

Public Views on Medicaid Work Requirements and Mandatory Premiums in Kentucky.

Importance: Federal and state policymakers continue to pursue work requirements and premiums as conditions of Medicaid participation. Opinion polling should distinguish between general policy preferences and specific views on quotas, penalties, and other elements. Objective: To identify views of adults in Kentucky regarding the design of Medicaid work requirements and premiums. Design, Setting, and Participant: A cross-sectional survey was conducted via telephone and the internet from June 27 through July 11, 2019, of 1203 Kentucky residents 9 months before the state intended to implement Medicaid work requirements and mandatory premiums. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2019 to August 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Agreement, disagreement, or neutral views on policy components were the main outcomes. Recruitment for the survey used statewide random-digit dialing and an internet panel to recruit residents aged 18 years or older. Findings were weighted to reflect state demographics. Of 39 110 landlines called, 209 reached an eligible person (of whom 150 participated), 8654 were of unknown eligibility, and 30 247 were ineligible. Of 55 305 cell phone lines called, 617 reached an eligible person (of whom 451 participated), 29 951 were of unknown eligibility, and 24 737 were ineligible. Internet recruitment (602 participants) used a panel of adult Kentucky residents maintained by an external data collector. Results: Percentages were weighted to resemble the adult population of Kentucky residents. Of the participants in the study, 52% (95% CI, 48%-55%) were women, 80% (95% CI, 77%-82%) were younger than 65 years, 41% (95% CI, 38%-45%) were enrolled in Medicaid, 36% (95% CI, 32%-39%) were Republican voters, 32% (95% CI, 29%-36%) were Democratic voters, 14% (95% CI, 11%-16%) were members of racial and ethnic minority groups (including but not limited to American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic or Latinx, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander), and 48% (95% CI, 44%-52%) were employed. Most participants supported work requirements generally (69% [95% CI, 66%-72%]) but did not support terminating benefits due to noncompliance (43% [95% CI, 39%-46%]) or requiring quotas of 20 or more hours per week (34% [95% CI, 31%-38%]). Support for monthly premiums (34% [95% CI, 31%-38%]) and exclusion penalties for premium nonpayment (22% [95% CI, 19%-25%]) was limited. Medicaid enrollees were significantly less supportive of these policies than nonenrollees. For instance, regarding work requirements, agreement was lower (64% [95% CI, 59%-69%] vs 72% [95% CI, 68%-77%]) and disagreement higher (26% [95% CI, 21%-31%] vs 20% [95% CI, 16%-24%]) among current Medicaid enrollees compared with nonenrollees (P = .04). Among Medicaid enrollees, some beliefs about work requirements varied significantly by employment status but not by political affiliation. Among nonenrollees, beliefs about work requirements, premiums, and Medicaid varied significantly by political affiliation but not by employment. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that even when public constituencies express general support for Medicaid work requirements or premiums, they may oppose central design features, such as quotas and termination of benefits. Program participants may also hold significantly different beliefs than nonparticipants, which should be understood before policies are changed.

Remote Patient-Reported Outcomes and Activity Monitoring to Improve Patient-Clinician Communication Regarding Symptoms and Functional Status: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Routine collection of patient-generated health data (PGHD) may promote earlier recognition of symptomatic and functional decline. This trial assessed the impact of an intervention integrating remote PGHD collection with patient nudges on symptom and functional status understanding between patients with advanced cancer and their oncology team. METHODS: This three-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted from November 19, 2020, to December 17, 2021, at a large tertiary oncology practice. We enrolled patients with stage IV GI and lung cancers undergoing chemotherapy. Over 6 months, patients in two intervention arms received PROStep-weekly text message-based symptom surveys and passive activity monitoring using a wearable accelerometer. PGHD were summarized in dashboards given to patients' oncology team before appointments. One intervention arm received an additional text-based active choice prompt to discuss worsening symptoms or functional status with their clinician. Control patients did not receive PROStep. The coprimary outcomes patient perceptions of oncology team symptom and functional understanding at 6 months were measured on a 1-5 Likert scale (5 = high understanding). RESULTS: One hundred eight patients enrolled: 55% male, 81% White, and 77% had GI cancers. Patient-reported clinician understanding did not differ between control and intervention arms for symptoms (4.5 v 4.5; P = .87) or functional status (4.5 v 4.3; P = .31). In the intervention arms, combined patient adherence to weekly symptom reports and daily activity monitoring was 64% and 53%, respectively. Intervention patients in the PROStep versus PROStep + active choice arms reported low burden from wearing the accelerometer (mean burden [standard deviation], 2.7 [1.3] v 2.1 [1.3]; P = .15) and completing surveys (2.1 [1.2] v 1.9 [1.3]; P = .44). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving PROStep reported high understanding of symptoms and functional status from their oncology team, although this did not differ from controls.

Behavioural economic interventions to embed palliative care in community oncology (BE-EPIC): study protocol for the BE-EPIC randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative care (PC) is a medical specialty focusing on providing relief from the symptoms and stress of serious illnesses such as cancer. Early outpatient specialty PC concurrent with cancer-directed treatment improves quality of life and symptom burden, decreases aggressive end-of-life care and is an evidence-based practice endorsed by national guidelines. However, nearly half of patients with advanced cancer do not receive specialty PC prior to dying. The objective of this study is to test the impact of an oncologist-directed default PC referral orders on rates of PC utilisation and patient quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre two-arm pragmatic randomised trial randomises four clinician-led pods, caring for approximately 250 patients who meet guideline-based criteria for PC referral, in a 1:1 fashion into a control or intervention arm. Intervention oncologists receive a nudge consisting of an electronic health record message indicating a patient has a default pended order for PC. Intervention oncologists are given an opportunity to opt out of referral to PC. Oncologists in pods randomised to the control arm will receive no intervention beyond usual practice. The primary outcome is completed PC visits within 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes are change in quality of life and absolute quality of life scores between the two arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania. Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences using methods that describe the results in ways that key stakeholders can best understand and implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05365997.

The design of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate multi-dimensional effects of a section 1115 Medicaid demonstration waiver with community engagement requirements.

Section 1115 demonstration waivers provide a mechanism for states to implement changes to their Medicaid programs. While such waivers are mandated to include evaluations of their impact, randomization - the gold standard for assessing causality - has not typically been a consideration. In a critical departure, the Commonwealth of Kentucky opted to pursue a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) for their controversial 2018 Medicaid Demonstration waiver, which included work requirements as a condition for the subset of beneficiaries deemed able-bodied to maintain eligibility for benefits. Beneficiaries were randomized 9:1 to the new waiver program or a control group who would retain their current benefits as part of the existing Medicaid expansion program. To address potential bias from differential attrition from the Medicaid program that would accrue from solely analyzing administrative data, our team designed a rich, prospective, longitudinal survey to collect primary and secondary outcomes from six categories of interest to policymakers: insurance coverage, health care utilization and quality, health behaviors, socioeconomic measures, personal finances, and health outcomes. At baseline, a subset of survey participants was invited to participate in the collection of biometric samples via in-person follow-up visits, and a cross-section were also invited to participate in qualitative interviews. While the demonstration waiver was terminated before the program began, our study design illustrates that it is possible for other researchers and state agencies seeking to evaluate Medicaid demonstration waivers and other demonstration policies to work together to implement high quality randomized trials - even for controversial policies.