Testing the feasibility of mobile ecological momentary assessment for symptom burden and management among metastatic cancer patients.

ABSTRACT

Background: Individuals who have metastatic cancer experience substantial physical and psychological distress (e.g., pain, depression, anxiety) from their disease and its treatment compared to patients with less advanced disease. As the burden of symptoms varies over time, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may be used to better understand patients' symptom trajectories, complimenting traditional longitudinal data collection methods. However, few have used EMA in patients with metastatic disease. The current study adds to the existing literature by exploring interrelated, common cancer-related symptoms of pain, anxiety, and depression and use of cannabis-based products, opioid medications, other (nonopioid) pain medications, and medications for anxiety or depression. Methods: An eight-day prospective observational feasibility study was conducted among 50 patients with metastatic cancer recruited from seven solid cancer clinics at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Participants completed a week of interval-contingent mobile EMA, administered daily at 9 a.m., 3 p.m., and 8 p.m., and a comprehensive interviewer-administered questionnaire on Day 8. Participants were queried on their symptom burden and management strategies (i.e., use of medications and cannabis). We considered EMA to be feasible if a priori retention (80%) and adherence goals (75%) were met. Results: Seventy-nine percent of eligible patients contacted enrolled in the study (n = 50 of 63). Among those enrolled, 92% were retained through Day 8 and 80% completed >90% of EMAs, exceeding a priori objectives. Participants' average pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms across the week of EMA ranged from 1.7 to 1.8 (1 to 5 scale). Symptoms varied little by day or time of administration. On Day 8, significant proportions of participants reported past-week use of medications and cannabis for symptom management. Conclusions: Participants exceeded a priori adherence and retention objectives, indicating that mobile EMA is feasible among metastatic cancer patients, addressing a gap in the existing literature and informing future research. Restricting eligibility to participants with a minimum cutoff of symptom burden may be warranted to increase observations of symptom variability and provide opportunities for future health interventions. Future research is needed to test the acceptability and quality of data over a longer study period in this patient population.