Remote Symptom Monitoring Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In Denmark, outpatient follow-up for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is changing from in-hospital visits toward more remote health care delivery. The nonuse of remote patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is a well-known challenge, and it can be difficult to explain which mechanisms of interventions influence the outcome. Process evaluation may, therefore, be used to answer important questions on how and why interventions work, aiming to enhance the implications for clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide insight into the intervention process by evaluating (1) the representativity of the study population, (2) patient and physician use patterns, (3) patient adherence to the intervention, and (4) clinical engagement. METHODS: A process evaluation determining the reach, dose, fidelity, and clinical engagement was carried out, alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). We developed and implemented an intervention using PRO measures to monitor outpatients remotely. Data were collected for the PRO intervention arms in the RCT from 4 sources: (1) PRO data from the participants to determine personal factors, (2) the web-based PRO system to identify key usage intervention patterns, (3) medical records to identify clinical factors relating to the use of the intervention, and (4) semistructured interviews conducted with involved physicians. RESULTS: Of the 320 patients invited, 152 (47.5%) accepted to participate. The study population reflected the target population. The mean adherence rate to the PRO intervention arms was 82% (95% CI 76-87). The questionnaire response rate was 539/544 (99.1%). A minority of 13 (12.9%) of 101 patients needed assistance to complete study procedures. Physicians assessed 477/539 (88.5%) of the questionnaires. Contact was established in 417/539 (77.4%) of the cases, and 122/539 (22.6%) of the patients did not have contact. Physicians initiated 288/417 (69.1%) and patients requested 129/417 (30.9%) of all the contacts. The primary causes of contact were clinical data (242/417, 58%), PRO data (92/417, 22.1%), and medication concerns and precautionary reasons (83/417, 19.9%). Physicians found the use of PRO measures in remote follow-up beneficial for assessing the patient's health. The inclusion of self-reported clinical data in the questionnaire motivated physicians to assess patient responses. However, some barriers were emphasized, such as loss of a personal relationship with the patient and the risk of missing important symptoms in the absence of a face-to-face assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the importance and practical use of remote monitoring among patients with CKD. Overall, the intervention was implemented as intended. We observed high patient adherence rates, and the physicians managed most questionnaires. Some physicians worried that distance from the patients made it unfeasible to use their "clinical glance," posing a potential risk of overlooking crucial patients' symptoms. These findings underscore key considerations for the implementation of remote follow-up. Introducing a hybrid approach combining remote and face-to-face consultations may address these concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03847766; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03847766.

Patient-reported outcome measures as determinants for the utilization of health care among outpatients with epilepsy: a prognostic cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can inform clinical decision making and planning of treatment in the health care system. The aim of this study was to examine whether patient-reported health domains influence the use of health care services in outpatients with epilepsy. METHODS: This was a prognostic cohort study of 2,426 epilepsy outpatients referred to PRO-based follow-up at the Department of Neurology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Patients filled out a questionnaire covering health literacy areas, self-efficacy, well-being and general health. The main outcome was a record of contact to the epilepsy outpatient clinic, inpatient ward and/or emergency room within 1 year, retrieved from health register data. Associations were analysed by multivariable binomial logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 2,017 patients responded to the questionnaire and 1,961 were included in the final analyses. An outpatient contact was more likely among patients with very low health literacy ('social support'): odds ratio (OR) 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1-2.1), very low and low self-efficacy: OR 1.7 (95% CI: 1.2-2.3) and OR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.0-1.8), low and medium well-being: OR 2.2 (95% CI: 1.6-3.0) and OR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1-1.9), and patients rating their general health as fair: OR 2.8 (95% CI: 1.7-4.6). Inpatient contact and emergency room contact were associated with the health domains of self-efficacy and general health. CONCLUSIONS: PRO questionnaire data indicated that patients with low health literacy ("social support"), well-being, self-efficacy and self-rated general health had an increased use of health care services at 1 year.These results suggest that PRO measures may provide useful information in relation to the possibility of proactive efforts and prevention of disease-related issues and to help identify efficiency options regarding resource utilization.

The use of patient reported outcomes (PRO) measures to monitor and plan treatment in health care has become increasingly common in recent years. In this study, we examined whether PRO measures of patients self-perceived levels of health knowledge, confidence in managing their health, overall sense of well-being, and general perception of their health could predict the need for contact in an epilepsy outpatient clinic during a 12 months' period. An outpatient contact was more likely among patients with lower levels of health literacy, well-being, self-efficacy and self-rated general health. The study indicates that PRO measures may hold useful information to inform clinical decision making and planning of care among outpatients with epilepsy.

The iBLAD study: patient-reported outcomes in bladder cancer during oncological treatment: a multicenter national randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are getting widely implemented, but little is known of the impact of applying PROs in specific cancer diagnoses. We report the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the active use of PROs in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer (BC) undergoing medical oncological treatment (MOT) with focus on determining the clinical effects of using PROs during chemo- or immunotherapy compared to standard of care. METHODS: We recruited patients from four departments of oncology from 2019 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were locally advanced or metastatic BC, initiating chemo- or immunotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 between answering selected PRO-CTCAE questions electronically once weekly with a built-in alert-algorithm instructing patients of how to handle reported symptoms as a supplement to standard of care for handling of side effects (intervention arm (IA)) vs standard procedure for handling of side effects (control arm (CA)). No real-time alerts were sent to the clinic when PROs exceeded threshold values. Clinicians were prompted to view the completed PROs in the IA at each clinical visit. The co-primary clinical endpoints were hospital admissions and treatment completion rate. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), quality of life (EORTC's QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BLM30) and dose reductions. RESULTS: 228 patients with BC were included, 76% were male. 141 (62%) of the patients had metastatic disease. 51% of patients in the IA completed treatment vs. 56% of patients in the CA, OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.47-1.44, p = 0.51). 41% of patients in the IA experienced hospitalization vs. 32% in the CA, OR 1.48 (95% CI 0.83-2.65, p = 0.17). OS was comparable between the two arms (IA: median 22.3mo (95% CI 17.0-NR) vs. CA: median 23.1mo (95% CI 17.7-NR). Patient and clinician compliance was high throughout the study period (80% vs 94%). CONCLUSIONS: This RCT did not show an effect of PRO on completion of treatment, hospitalizations or OS for BC patients during MOT despite a high level of patient and clinician compliance. The lack of real-time response to alerts remains the greatest limitation to this study.

The national implementation of a triage algorithm based on patient-reported outcome measures in outpatients with epilepsy.

This is a letter to the editor on the article "Limited value of a patient-reported triage algorithm in an outpatient epilepsy clinic" Dan Med J 2022;69(7):A12210915.

Remote follow-up based on patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: A qualitative study of patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in outpatient follow-up. PRO-based remote follow-up offers a new healthcare delivery model, where PROs are used as the basis for outpatient follow-up in patients with chronic kidney disease. However, the patient's perspective of this novel remote care delivery remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the patients' experiences using PROs in remote care and how this mode of follow-up may enhance patient engagement. DESIGN: A qualitative approach was employed, guided by Focused Ethnography and Interpretive Description. PARTICIPANTS: Purposively, 15 patients with chronic kidney disease experienced with PRO-based remote follow-up in 3 renal outpatient clinics in the Central Denmark Region, were recruited. MEASURES: Field studies comprising participant observation in remote PRO consultations and individual, semi-structured interviews with the patients constituted the empirical data. Thematic analysis was performed according to Braun and Clarke's six-phase process. RESULTS: PRO-based remote follow-up may enhance patient engagement by a) improving communication, b) increasing disease knowledge, c) inducing flexibility, d) ensuring clinician feedback on PRO data, and e) prompting clinical action. Barriers to enhanced patient engagement were identified as a) lack of feedback on PRO data, b) lower disease knowledge, c) PRO in competition with biomedical data, and d) loss of personal relation. CONCLUSION: PRO-based follow-up in remote care holds several advantages for the patients. However, some barriers need clinical awareness before PROs may enhance the patients' engagement in remote follow-up. Future studies should explore the impact of involving relatives in PRO-based follow-up.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in chronic and malignant diseases: ten years' experience with PRO-algorithm-based patient-clinician interaction (telePRO) in AmbuFlex.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) measures may be used as the basis for out-patient follow-up instead of fixed appointments. The patients attend follow-up from home by filling in questionnaires developed for that specific aim and patient group (telePRO). The questionnaires are handled in real time by a specific algorithm, which assigns an outcome color reflecting clinical need. The specific questionnaires and algorithms (named solutions) are constructed in a consensus process with clinicians. We aimed to describe AmbuFlex' telePRO solutions and the algorithm outcomes and variation between patient groups, and to discuss possible applications and challenges. METHODS: TelePRO solutions with more than 100 processed questionnaires were included in the analysis. Data were retrieved together with data from national registers. Characteristics of patients, questionnaires and outcomes were tabulated for each solution. Graphs were constructed depicting the overall and within-patient distribution of algorithm outcomes for each solution. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2021, 29 specific telePRO solutions were implemented within 24 different ICD-10 groups. A total of 42,015 patients were referred and answered 171,268 questionnaires. An existing applicable instrument with cut-off values was available for four solutions, whereas items were selected or developed ad hoc for the other solutions. Mean age ranged from 10.7 (Pain in children) to 73.3 years (chronic kidney disease). Mortality among referred patients varied between 0 (obesity, asthma, endometriosis and pain in children) and 528 per 1000 patient years (Lung cancer). There was substantial variation in algorithm outcome across patient groups while different solutions within the same patient group varied little. DISCUSSION: TelePRO can be applied in diseases where PRO can reflect clinical status and needs. Questionnaires and algorithms should be adapted for the specific patient groups and clinical aims. When PRO is used as replacement for clinical contact, special carefulness should be observed with respect to patient safety.

Test-retest reliability and measurement error of the WHO-5 Well-being Index and the Problem Areas in Diabetes questionnaire (PAID) used in telehealth among patients with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures may be used in telehealth for the clinical assessment of mental health and diabetes distress, which are important aspects in diabetes care, but valid and reliable instruments on these topics are necessary. We aimed to evaluate the test-retest reliability and measurement error of the Danish versions of the WHO-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaires used in a PRO-based telehealth intervention among patients with type 1 diabetes. A further aim was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of single items concerning patients' symptom burden and general health status. METHODS: Outpatients with type 1 diabetes from the Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, were enrolled from April 2019 to June 2020. Patients aged ≥ 18 who had type 1 diabetes for > 1 year, internet access, and the ability to understand, read, and write Danish were included. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and weighted Kappa values were used to assess test-retest reliability, and measurement error was assessed by estimating the minimal detectable change (MDC). RESULTS: A total of 146/255 (57%) patients completed the web questionnaire twice. The median response time between the two-time points was five days. The ICC of the WHO-5 scale was 0.87 (95% CI 0.82-0.90), and MDC was 18.56 points (95% CI 16.65-20.99). The ICC of the PAID scale was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.92), and MDC was 11.86 points (95% CI 10.46-13.70). Overall, test-retest reliability of single symptoms and general health status items was substantial. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO-5 and PAID questionnaires, and single symptoms and general health status items showed substantial test-retest reliability among patients with type 1 diabetes. Measurement error of the PAID questionnaire was considered acceptable; however, a larger measurement error of the WHO-5 questionnaire was observed. Further research is recommended to explore these findings.

Randomized controlled study to evaluate the impact of flexible patient-controlled visits in people with type 1 diabetes: The DiabetesFlex Trial.

AIM: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of health care-initiated visits versus patient-controlled flexible visits on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The DiabetesFlex trial was a randomized controlled, pragmatic non-inferiority 15-month follow-up study comparing standard care (face-to-face visits every 4 months) with DiabetesFlex (patient-controlled flexible visits using patient-reported, outcome-based telehealth follow-up). Of 343 enrolled participants, 160 in each group completed the study. The primary outcome was mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 15-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, lipid levels, frequency of visits, the World Health Organization score-five well-being-index (WHO-5), the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale and experience of participation in own care (participation score). RESULTS: The adjusted mean difference in HbA1c between standard care and DiabetesFlex was similar and below the predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (-0.03% [95%CI: 0.15, 0.11]/-0.27 mmol/mol [-1.71, 1.16]). No intergroup mean changes in lipid or blood pressure were observed. Conversely, DiabetesFlex participants presented an increased mean WHO-5 index of 4.5 (1.3, 7.3), participation score of 1.1 (0.5, 2.0), and decreased PAID score of -4.8 (-7.1, -2.6) compared with standard care. During follow-up, DiabetesFlex participants actively changed 23% of face-to-face visits to telephone consultations, cancelled more visits (17% vs. 9%), and stayed away without cancellation less often (2% vs. 8%). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard care, flexible patient-controlled visits combined with patient-reported outcomes in participants with metabolic controlled type 1 diabetes and good psychological well-being further improved diabetes-related well-being and decreased face-to-face visits while maintaining safe diabetes management.

Patient-reported outcome measures for clinical decision-making in outpatient follow-up: validity and reliability of a renal disease questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used by clinicians to support communication in telephone- or face-to-face consultations with patients. A renal disease questionnaire has been developed, but not sufficiently evaluated through clinimetrics in clinical setting. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the content validity, construct validity and the test-retest reliability of a renal disease questionnaire to be used for clinical decision-making. METHODS: A content, construct validity and test-retest reliability study was conducted in 3 nephrology outpatient clinics in Central Denmark Region, Denmark. Content validity (face validity, comprehensibility and relevance) was assessed among 8 patients and 6 clinicians. Reliability was assessed by asking outpatients with chronic kidney disease to complete the questionnaire twice. Reliability was assessed by kappa statistics and agreement by percentage. Construct validity was determined using 4 a priori defined hypotheses and comparing 2 known groups. RESULTS: Five new domains emerged, 6 items were rephrased and 3 items were removed following the content validity test. A total of 160 patients completed the questionnaire with median 8 days (IQR 2 days) between assessments. The test-retest reliability parameters of the single items in the questionnaire were substantial to almost perfect as all the observed weighted kappa values ranged from 0.61 to 0.91, 95% CI (0.34 to 0.95). In total, 61% of the single items showed almost perfect agreement. In total, 3 of the 4 hypotheses were accepted and 44% of the items showed satisfying known-group discriminative validity. CONCLUSION: A renal disease questionnaire used for clinical decision-making in outpatient follow-up showed acceptable content validity and substantial to almost perfect reliability. Sufficient construct validity was not established. Incorporating the questionnaire into routine clinical practice may improve the evaluation of disease burden in patients with chronic kidney disease. We ask patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Central Region Denmark to complete a questionnaire before each outpatient visit. The answers they provide are used to support communication with their health care provider. A questionnaire requires testing to ensure it can accurately capture important information about patient's symptoms and quality of life. When questionnaires are used to support communication between patients and health care professionals, they need to have good measurement properties. This means they need to be: (1) trustworthy, (2) relevant to a patient's health condition, (3) consistent and produce stable results every time. We explored the measurement properties of a questionnaire designed to be used in the face-to face outpatient visits for patients with CKD. We found that the questionnaire captured consistent and stable results. Using this questionnaire may help health care professionals to assess the patients´ burden of symptoms with a more patient-centered approach. Potentially, the use of the questionnaire will increase the patients´ ability to cope with their symptoms and strengthen patients´ involvement in the clinical decisions concerning their treatment.

Association of patient-reported outcomes and ovarian cancer recurrence.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of patients with advanced ovarian cancer experience disease recurrence after primary treatment. OBJECTIVE: To explore the diagnostic accuracy of repeated measurement of patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life scores in relation to ovarian cancer recurrence. METHODS: Patients with ovarian cancer were recruited to the PROMova study by the end of their primary treatment at eight centers in Denmark. The purpose of the PROMova study was to explore the applicability of repeated use of patient-reported outcomes, which consisted of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer generic questionnaire and the ovarian specific questionnaire. The patient-reported outcomes were completed 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months after enrollment or until recurrence. The 3-month interval between completions was the period in which recurrence was assessed. Imaging and the biomarker CA125 were used as reference modality for recurrence. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to investigate the association between mean patient-reported outcome scores and recurrence. Receiver operating curves were used to establish cut-off scores. The diagnostic accuracy of patient-reported outcomes, including sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values was estimated based on the Youden index. For combined scales, diagnostic accuracy was investigated based on multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The analysis included 196 patients with an overall recurrence rate of 50.5% and an overall mean time to recurrence of 302 days. With imaging as reference, patients with recurrence reported significantly lower global health, worse physical functioning, and more abdominal symptoms preceding recurrence. With CA125 as reference, global health, physical and emotional functioning were impaired. Despite the worsening of a number of symptoms prior to recurrence whichever reference modality was applied, the patient-reported outcome scores did not provide adequate diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: Repeated use of patient-reported outcomes during surveillance of ovarian cancer was not of diagnostic value. Future efforts should be directed at improving the administration of patient-reported outcomes as well as exploring the potential of using these outcomes as an indicator of clinical relevance.

Effect of patient-reported outcomes as a dialogue-based tool in cancer consultations on patient self-management and health-related quality of life: a clinical, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: With increased survival among patients with metastatic melanoma and limited time with health care providers, patients are expected to assume a more active role in managing their treatment and care. Activated patients have the knowledge, skills, and confidence to make effective solutions to self-manage health. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) could have the potential to enhance patient activation. However, PRO-based interventions that facilitate an activation in patients with metastatic melanoma are lacking and warranted. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective non-randomized controlled, clinical trial, patients with metastatic melanoma were assigned to either the intervention (systematic feedback and discussion of PRO during consultation) given at one hospital or the control group (treatment as usual) if they received treatment from two other hospitals in Denmark. The primary outcome was the patient activation measure (PAM), which reflects self-management. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), self-efficacy, and Patient-Physician interaction. Outcomes were measured at baseline, and after 3, 6, and 12 months. The analysis of the effect from baseline to 12 months employed mixed-effects modeling. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2019, patients were allocated to either the intervention group (n = 137) or the control group (n = 142). We found no significant difference in the course of patient activation between the two groups over time. The course of HRQoL was statistically significantly improved by the intervention compared to the control group. Especially, females in the intervention group performed better than males. The other secondary outcomes were not improved by the intervention. CONCLUSION: The intervention did not improve knowledge, skills, and confidence for self-management for patients with metastatic melanoma. Neither did it improve coping self-efficacy nor perceived efficacy in Patient-Physician interaction. However, the results suggest that the intervention can have a significant impact on HRQoL and in particular social and emotional well-being among the females.

Clinical effects of assessing electronic patient-reported outcomes monitoring symptomatic toxicities during breast cancer therapy: a nationwide and population-based study.

The involvement of cancer patients in symptom reporting talks into our cultural narrative of empowerment and participation in decisions in health of both patients and professionals. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) is a tool applied for use in such interaction. Based on limited evidence and few empirical studies, health systems are rapidly implementing this instrument in managing patients in active treatment and in follow-up. In a cluster randomized trial of all Danish oncology departments treating breast cancer with adjuvant chemotherapy, we applied ePRO in 347 patients consecutively recruited. Our primary outcome, which was at least one treatment adjustment, was not significantly influenced using ePRO, 34% in the ePRO arm and 41% in the usual care arm received at least one treatment adjustment, p = 0.095. Number of hospitalizations and events of febrile neutropenia were not influenced by the intervention. We believe that one of the main reasons for this finding could be the application of PRO in a well-regulated treatment setting within a public health care system where the most impacting symptomatic toxicities are already taken care off.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02996201, registered 19 Dec 2016, retrospectively registered.

The PROMova study comparing active and passive use of patient-reported outcome measures in ovarian cancer follow-up: effect on patient-perceived involvement, satisfaction with care, and usefulness.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ovarian cancer often experience substantial health problems and side effects resulting in reduced quality of life (QoL). Different models of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during follow-up may improve the quality of care. This national, multicenter observational study investigated the effect of active use of PROMs on patient-perceived involvement, satisfaction with care, unmet needs, and QoL during follow-up of ovarian cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ovarian cancer patients were recruited at the end of primary treatment at eight centers in Denmark. During 18 months of follow-up patients repeatedly completed European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires covering health related QoL and symptoms. At the sites using PROMs actively (ACT), the clinician had access to an overview of the patient's scores during the clinical encounter. Clinicians using PROMs passively were alerted in case of severe development of symptoms. Following each encounter, patients evaluated their health service experience by completing the CollaboRATE scale of involvement in decision making, the Patient Experience Questionnaire, and ad hoc questions covering patient-perceived usefulness of the PROMs. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients were enrolled, i.e., 168 (75.3%) at five sites using ACT and 53 (23.8%) at three sites using them passively. We found no statistically significant difference in involvement in the decision making, satisfaction with care, unmet needs, and QoL between the two groups. The majority of patients found it useful to complete the PROMs, although it did not seem to significantly support them in raising issues with the oncologist. CONCLUSION: Active use of PROMs did not improve patients' experience of involvement in follow-up care as compared to passive use.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Routine Care Predict for Survival at Disease Progression in Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been increasingly implemented in routine care to aid in clinical decision-making. However, the prognostic value of PRO measures as a tool for decision making is not easily interpreted by clinicians. Our aims were to explore the prognostic value of PRO measures at disease progression and the changes in PRO measures between treatment start (baseline) and disease progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since 2014, patients with lung cancer have completed an electronic version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and LC-13 before every outpatient visit at the Department of Oncology, Hospital Unit West, Jutland, Denmark. The patients' responses were used in routine care. Patients receiving palliative antineoplastic treatment were eligible for analysis if the questionnaire had been completed at the initiation of first-line treatment and at disease progression. The prognostic value of the scores was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model. A P value < .01 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 94 screened patients were included. At disease progression, survival could be predicted from the absolute score of the global health scale, 3 functional scales (physical, role, emotional), and 7 symptom scales (fatigue, pain, dyspnea, hemoptysis, lung cancer dyspnea, chest pain). In addition, changes in hemoptysis, dysphagia, dyspnea, and chest pain predicted for survival at progression. CONCLUSION: PRO measures used in routine care can provide clinicians with relevant prognostic information about patients with lung cancer at disease progression. These results show the potential value of PRO measures when used in clinical decision-making.

Determinants of Health Status After Stroke: A Cohort Study with Repeated Measurements.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the long-term course of health following stroke is sparse and relies mainly on studies with short follow-up or few measurements per patient. We aimed to describe the course and analyze the determinants of the course of physical and mental health status after stroke with repeated measurements in a large population-based cohort of first time Danish stroke patients. METHODS: We followed 2,414 first time stroke patients admitted to any hospital in the Central Denmark Region, Denmark, between October 1, 2008 and January 1, 2012, with five questionnaires over a 2 years period. Self-rated health was assessed by the SF-12 instrument. Information on possible clinical and patient-related determinants of self-rated health was obtained from questionnaires and national registers. The scores were analyzed at five selected fixed time-points and as well as longitudinally with mixed models. RESULTS: The SF-12 mental component summary score (MCS) increased with 0.89 points/year (95% CI=0.6-1.2), while the increase in the physically component summary score (PCS) did not reach statistical significance (0.13/year; 95% CI=-0.2-0.5). The most pronounced changes were seen in the Vitality and Role Physical SF-12 subscales, which both increased by 2.1 points/year. No statistically significant changes over time were found in the Physical Functioning and Bodily Pain subscales. Variables associated with increasing self-rated mental health (MCS) were no comorbidity, older age, male gender, and mild stroke severity. Variables associated with increasing ratings of physical health (PCS) were mild stroke severity, no comorbidity, higher educational level, and younger age. The negative impact of age increased significantly with time during the follow-up period for physical as well as mental health, while the effects of the other variables were stable over time. The results were similar in the two analytical approaches. CONCLUSION: In a large, geographically well-defined population of first time stroke patients, the majority of SF-12 sub-scales and the mental component score improved slightly over time. Small improvements in self-rated mental health may be observed during the first 2 years after the stroke. Stroke is a disease with long-term consequences on a wide range of health aspects. Level as well as course differ between sub-groups, and treatment of comorbidity may be an important target with respect to rehabilitation.

Electronic reporting of patient-reported outcomes in a fragile and comorbid population during cancer therapy - a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) is becoming widespread in health care, but the implementation into routine cancer care during therapy remains to be seen. Especially, little is known of the use and success of electronic reporting during active cancer treatment in fragile and comorbid patients. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of ePRO and its incorporation into routine cancer care, measured by physician compliance, for a fragile and comorbid bladder cancer (BC) population receiving chemo- or immunotherapy. METHODS: All BC patients initiating treatment for locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer at Rigshospitalet or Herlev Hospital, Denmark, were approached during an 8 month period. Exclusion criteria were patients not speaking Danish or not being signed up for electronic communication with health authorities. Enrolled patients were prompted to complete weekly ePROs from home. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's general quality of life questionnaire, QLQ-C30, and the module for muscle-invasive bladder cancer QLQ-BLM30, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS, and selected items from the Patient Reported-Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), in total 158 questions weekly. If failing to report when prompted, patients were sent two e-mail reminders. Patients were informed that the physician would have an overview of the reported ePROs at their following clinical visits. Physicians were at all clinical visits informed to look at the ePROs in a software solution separate from the medical records. Physicians were logged to check their compliance to the task. No continuous surveillance of ePROs was established. RESULTS: Of 91 patients screened for enrolment, 19 patients (21%) were not found eligible for standard treatment, eight patients (9%) were not signed up for electronic communication with the health authorities and nine patients (10%) declined participation. Another six patients did not meet other inclusion criteria. In total 49 BC patients were enrolled, 29 initiating chemotherapy and 20 initiating immunotherapy. A total of 466 electronic questionnaires were completed. The overall adherence of the patients to complete ePROs was at an expected level for an elderly cancer population (75%) and remained above 70% until the 6th cycle of treatment. The physician' compliance was in contrast low (0-52%) throughout the course of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic reporting of PROs is feasible in a fragile and comorbid population of patients during routine active cancer treatment. Despite clear implementation strategies the physician compliance remained low throughout the study proving the need for further implementation strategies.

Electronic symptom monitoring in patients with metastatic lung cancer: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: To design an electronic questionnaire for symptom monitoring and to evaluate the feasibility, usability and acceptability when applied to patients with metastatic lung cancer. SETTING: Single-centre feasibility study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with stage IV lung cancer in antineoplastic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: This study describes the first three phases of a complex intervention design: phase 1, development of the intervention; phase 2, feasibility testing and phase 3, evaluation of the intervention. In phase 1, items were selected for the questionnaire and adjusted following patient interviews. In phase 2, patients completed the electronic questionnaire weekly during a 3-week feasibility test. In case of symptom deterioration, a nurse was notified with the aim to contact the patient. In phase 3, patients evaluated phase 2 by paper questionnaires, and interviews were conducted with the participating nurses. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The study outcomes: phase 1, usability and relevance; phase 2, recruitment rate, compliance and threshold functionality and phase 3, usability, acceptability and relevance. RESULTS: In phase 1, a questionnaire was designed and reviewed by patients (n=8). The interviews revealed high usability and relevance of the intervention.For phases 2 and 3, 20 of 29 approached patients (69%) responded to the questionnaire on a weekly basis. Two patients did not complete any questionnaires (compliance 90%). The remaining 18 patients completed 65 of a total of 72 possible questionnaires (7 missed, 93% completed). Reported symptoms led to a phone call from a nurse in 30% of the responses.The patients reported high usability and acceptability of questionnaire and software. The substance of the telephonic conversations was relevant, and the study set-up was logistically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: An electronic questionnaire designed for symptom monitoring revealed high usability, acceptability and relevance in the target population. In conclusion, the study set-up was considered feasible for a randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03529851.

Use of PROM during follow-up of patients with ovarian cancer: the PROMova study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of high-level evidence on the optimal follow-up of patients with ovarian cancer after primary treatment. A debate is ongoing on the extent to which follow-up should consider patient preferences and patient-reported outcome measures. Incorporation of patient-reported outcome measures supports the dialog between patient and clinician and may be instrumental in symptom monitoring and detection of underlying issues, especially when used actively during the clinical consultation. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE AND ENDPOINT: The PROMova study aims to assess whether proactive use of patient-reported outcome measures during follow-up care increases patient involvement as perceived by the patient compared with standard care. Another objective is to measure satisfaction with the care provided. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: It is hypothesized that proactive use of patient-reported outcome measures during the clinical encounter will improve patients' experience of involvement in follow-up care. TRIAL DESIGN: PROMova is a multi-center, observational cohort study collecting data from eight departments in Denmark. Five departments use the patient-reported outcome measures proactively during the consultation and three provide standard care. Participants are followed up with patient-reported outcome measures for up to 3 years. The patient-reported outcome measures package comprises EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-OV28, a questionnaire screening tool for recurrence, CollaboRATE, and selected questions from the Patient Experience Questionnaire. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients older than 18 years diagnosed with ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer are eligible when entering the follow-up program after primary treatment. Participants must be able to speak and read Danish. SAMPLE SIZE: 223 patients with ovarian cancer. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: The protocol closed for enrollment in 2019. Publication of final results is expected in spring 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROMova was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov November 2016 Identifier: NCT02916875.

The long-term course of fatigue following breast cancer diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Fatigue following breast cancer is a well-known problem, with both high and persistent prevalence. Previous studies suffer from lack of repeated measurements, late recruitment and short periods of follow-up. The course of fatigue from diagnosis and treatment to the long-time outcome status is unknown as well as differences in the level of fatigue between treatment regimens. The purpose of this study was to describe the long-time course of fatigue from the time of clinical suspicion of breast cancer, its dependence of patient characteristics and treatment regimens and the comparison with the course of fatigue among women with the same suspicion, but not diagnosed with breast cancer. METHODS: Three hundred thirty-two women referred to acute or subacute mammography was followed with questionnaires from before the mammography and up to 1500 days. Fatigue was measured by the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20). The women reported their initial level of fatigue before the mammography and thus without knowledge of whether they had cancer or not. Both women with and without cancer were followed. Women with cancer were identified in the clinical database established by Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) to collect information on treatment regimen. RESULTS: Compared to fatigue scores before diagnosis, women with breast cancer reported a large increase of fatigue, especially in the first 6 months, followed by a slow decrease over time. Despite the long follow-up period, the women with breast cancer did not return to their level of fatigue at time of the mammography. Women without breast cancer, experienced a rapid decrease of fatigue after disproval of diagnosis followed by a steadier period. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue is a persistent problem in women diagnosed with breast cancer, even several years following diagnosis and treatment. The women with breast cancer were most affected by fatigue in the first 6 months after diagnosis.

Patient-reported outcome measures in the interaction between patient and clinician - a multi-perspective qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: This article addresses patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based follow-up used as a substitute for regularly scheduled follow-ups. In PRO-based follow-up, patients' PRO data filled in by the patients at home are used by clinicians as a decision aid to identify those who need clinical attention based on an automated PRO algorithm, clinical attention being either a phone call or a physical consultation. A physical consultation in the outpatient clinic prompted by the patient's PRO is termed a "PRO consultation." In this multi-perspective qualitative study, we explored the influence of patients' self-reported data on patient-clinician interaction during PRO consultations in epilepsy outpatient clinics. Interpretive description was the methodological approach, applying data from participant observations, informal interviews with clinicians, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. RESULTS: We found that application and deliberate use of patients' PRO measures can affect patient-clinician interaction, promoting patient involvement in terms of improved communication and increased patient activation. These findings reflect the general patterns that have been reported in the literature. In addition, we found that PRO measures also may induce unmet expectations among some patients that can have a negative effect on patients' experiences of the interaction and their follow-up experience in general. We extracted two thematic patterns that represent PRO measures' potential for patient involvement in the patient-clinician interaction. The first pattern represents enablers, and the second pattern represents barriers for PRO measures to affect patient involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Applying PRO measures in clinical practice does not automatically enhance the patient-clinician interaction. To strengthen the benefits of PRO measures, the following supplementary clinical initiatives are suggested: summarizing and reporting the PRO measures back to the patient, considering carefully which PRO measures to include, training clinicians and assuring that the patients' introduction to PRO-based follow-up clarifies expectations.