Development and acceptability of PETS-Now, an electronic point-of-care tool to monitor treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a web-based tool for patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) to communicate concerns about treatment burden to their healthcare providers. METHODS: Patients and providers from primary-care clinics participated. We conducted focus groups to identify content for a prototype clinical tool to screen for treatment burden by reviewing domains and items from a previously validated measure, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS). Following review of the prototype, a quasi-experimental pilot study determined acceptability of using the tool in clinical practice. The study protocol was modified to accommodate limitations due to the Covid-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with MCC and 18 providers participated in focus groups to review existing PETS content. The pilot tool (named PETS-Now) consisted of eight domains (Living Healthy, Health Costs, Monitoring Health, Medicine, Personal Relationships, Getting Healthcare, Health Information, and Medical Equipment) with each domain represented by a checklist of potential concerns. Administrative burden was minimized by limiting patients to selection of one domain. To test acceptability, 17 primary-care providers first saw 92 patients under standard care (control) conditions followed by another 90 patients using the PETS-Now tool (intervention). Each treatment burden domain was selected at least once by patients in the intervention. No significant differences were observed in overall care quality between patients in the control and intervention conditions with mean care quality rated high in both groups (9.3 and 9.2, respectively, out of 10). There were no differences in provider impressions of patient encounters under the two conditions with providers reporting that patient concerns were addressed in 95% of the visits in both conditions. Most intervention group patients (94%) found that the PETS-Now was easy to use and helped focus the conversation with the provider on their biggest concern (98%). Most providers (81%) felt they had learned something new about the patient from the PETS-Now. CONCLUSION: The PETS-Now holds promise for quickly screening and monitoring treatment burden in people with MCC and may provide information for care planning. While acceptable to patients and clinicians, integration of information into the electronic medical record should be prioritized.

Risk factors for poor health-related quality of life in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: exploring the role of treatment burden as a mediator.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for poor health-related quality of life (HRQL) in multi-morbid adult cancer survivors and explore whether perceived treatment and self-management burden mediate any of these relationships. METHODS: Ninety-one multi-morbid cancer survivors (median age: 65 years) completed surveys at baseline and 6 months. Demographic, psychosocial, and health care-related factors were assessed as were perceived treatment burden and general HRQL (physical and mental health). Data on medical diagnoses and cancer treatment were extracted from the medical record. Bivariate correlations screened for associations between predictors and outcomes, with significant predictors entered into multivariable linear regressions to identify unique risk factors for greater treatment burden and poorer HRQL. Follow-up regressions examined whether treatment burden mediated any of the risk factor-outcome relationships. RESULTS: Factors that correlated with higher baseline treatment burden included: having more diagnoses, less formal education, having seen more physicians in the past 6 months, having a mental health diagnosis, not having a set routine for one's self-management, low health literacy, low self-efficacy for self-management, and low social support (Ps <0.05). Among these, factors that also correlated with worse 6-month HRQL outcome included: having more diagnoses, having seen more physicians in the past 6 months, having a mental health diagnosis, not having a set routine for one's self-management, low health literacy, low self-efficacy, and low social support (Ps <0.05). Multivariable regressions showed that some of these factors independently predicted higher treatment burden and/or worse HRQL. Low self-efficacy was the most robust independent risk factor for poor HRQL (bs: 0.34-0.49, Ps <0.005), with evidence supporting that the relationships were partially mediated by treatment burden. CONCLUSION: Monitoring of psychosocial and health care-related risk factors for high treatment burden and poor HRQL can identify multi-morbid cancer survivors in need of extra support and could inform a more personalized treatment approach.