Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 2957–2967 | Cite as

Cancer survivor perspectives on sharing patient-generated health data with central cancer registries

  • T. G. SmithEmail author
  • M. E. Dunn
  • K. Y. Levin
  • S. P. Tsakraklides
  • S. A. Mitchell
  • L. V. van de Poll-Franse
  • K. C. Ward
  • C. L. Wiggins
  • X. C. Wu
  • M. Hurlbert
  • N. K. Aaronson
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Central cancer registries collect data and provide population-level statistics that can be tracked over time; yet registries may not capture the full range of clinically relevant outcomes. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) include health/treatment history, biometrics, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Collection of PGHD would broaden registry outcomes to better inform research, policy, and care. However, this is dependent on the willingness of patients to share such data. This study examines cancer survivors’ perspectives about sharing PGHD with central cancer registries.

Methods

Three U.S. central registries sampled colorectal, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and metastatic breast cancer survivors 1–4 years after diagnosis, recruiting them via mail to participate in one of seven focus groups (n = 52). Group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed.

Results

Most survivor-participants were unaware of the existence of registries. After having registries explained, all participants expressed their willingness to share PGHD with them if treated confidentially. Participants were willing to provide information on a variety of topics (e.g., medical history, medications, symptoms, financial difficulties, quality of life, biometrics, nutrition, exercise, and mental health), with a focus on long-term effects of cancer and its treatment. Participants’ preferred mode for providing data varied. Participants were also interested in receiving information from registries.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that registry-based collection of PGHD is acceptable to most cancer survivors and could facilitate registry-based efforts to collect PGHD/PROs. Central cancer registry-based collection of PGHD/PROs, especially on long-term effects, could enhance registry support of cancer control efforts including research and population health management.

Keywords

Patient-reported outcome measures Focus groups Cancer survivors Quality of life Patient generated health data Registries 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contributions of the staff of the central cancer registries where the study was conducted, who helped with sampling, recruitment, and conducting the focus groups. The authors are grateful to the patient participants who generously shared their time and perspectives. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent The American Cancer Society.

Funding

Intramural funding was provided by the Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance and the American Cancer Society. Support was also provided by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program under Contract HHSN261201800003I Task Order HHSN26100001, Contract HHSN261201800014I Task Order HHSN26100001, and Contract HHSN261201800007I, Task Order HHSN26100002; as well as by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries under cooperative agreements 5NU58DP003875-04 and 5NU58DP006332-02-00.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest with regard to this paper.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were approved by the Westat institutional review board (Project Number 6153.44), and performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Supplementary material

11136_2019_2263_MOESM1_ESM.docx (41 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 41 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Introducing Healthy People 2020. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/About-Healthy-People. Accessed 21 January 2019.
  2. 2.
    Kassler, W. J., Howerton, M., Thompson, A., Cope, E., Alley, D. E., & Sanghavi, D. (2017). Population health measurement at centers for medicare & medicaid services: Bridging the gap between public health and clinical quality. Population Health Management, 20(3), 173–180.  https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2016.0038.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kindig, D., & Stoddart, G. (2003). What is population health? American Journal of Public Health, 93(3), 380–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siddiqui, A. H., & Zafar, S. N. (2018). Global availability of cancer registry data. Journal of Global Oncology, 4, 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.18.00116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    White, M. C., Babcock, F., Hayes, N. S., Mariotto, A. B., Wong, F. L., Kohler, B. A., et al. (2017). The history and use of cancer registry data by public health cancer control programs in the United States. Cancer, 123(Suppl 24), 4969–4976.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30905.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cella, D., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Health-related quality of life measurement in oncology: Advances and opportunities. American Psychologist, 70(2), 175–185.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037821.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahmed, S., Berzon, R. A., Revicki, D. A., Lenderking, W. R., Moinpour, C. M., Basch, E., et al. (2012). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: Implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Medical Care, 50(12), 1060–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318268aaff.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andersen, B. L., DeRubeis, R. J., Berman, B. S., Gruman, J., Champion, V. L., Massie, M. J., et al. (2014). Screening, assessment, and care of anxiety and depressive symptoms in adults with cancer: An American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline adaptation. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32(15), 1605–1619.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.52.4611.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bower, J. E., Bak, K., Berger, A., Breitbart, W., Escalante, C. P., Ganz, P. A., et al. (2014). Screening, assessment, and management of fatigue in adult survivors of cancer: An American Society of Clinical oncology clinical practice guideline adaptation. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32(17), 1840–1850.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.53.4495.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson, L. A. (2014). Putting evidence into practice. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 18(Suppl), 2–4.  https://doi.org/10.1188/14.Cjon.S3.2-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2018). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Cancer-related fatigue version 2.2018. Fort Washington: National Comprehensive Cancer Network.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2018). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Adult cancer pain version 1.2018. Fort Washington: National Comprehensive Cancer Network.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2018). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Distress management version 2.2018. Fort Washington: National Comprehensive Cancer Network.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Quality Forum. (2013). Patient reported outcomes (PROs) in performance measurement. Washington, DC: NQF.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Basch, E., Spertus, J., Dudley, R. A., Wu, A., Chuahan, C., Cohen, P., et al. (2015). Methods for developing patient-reported outcome-based performance measures (PRO-PMs). Value Health, 18(4), 493–504.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2018). Blueprint for the CMS measures management system (version 14.0). Washington, DC: CMS.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Medicines Agency. (2016). The guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man: Appendix 2 The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. London, UK: EMA.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kluetz, P. G., Slagle, A., Papadopoulos, E. J., Johnson, L. L., Donoghue, M., Kwitkowski, V. E., et al. (2016). Focusing on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: Symptomatic adverse events, physical function, and disease-related symptoms. Clinical Cancer Research, 22(7), 1553–1558.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-15-2035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kluetz, P. G., Chingos, D. T., Basch, E. M., & Mitchell, S. A. (2016). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: Measuring symptomatic adverse events with the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 35, 67–73.  https://doi.org/10.1200/edbk_159514.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Institutes of Health. (2019). PROMIS program snapshot. https://commonfund.nih.gov/promis/index. Accessed 31 January 2019.
  21. 21.
    Barile, J. P., Reeve, B. B., Smith, A. W., Zack, M. M., Mitchell, S. A., Kobau, R., et al. (2013). Monitoring population health for Healthy People 2020: Evaluation of the NIH PROMIS(R) Global Health, CDC Healthy Days, and satisfaction with life instruments. Quality of Life Research, 22(6), 1201–1211.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0246-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thong, M. S., Mols, F., Stein, K. D., Smith, T., Coebergh, J. W., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2013). Population-based cancer registries for quality-of-life research: A work-in-progress resource for survivorship studies? Cancer, 119(Suppl 11), 2109–2123.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chawla, N., Urato, M., Ambs, A., Schussler, N., Hays, R. D., Clauser, S. B., et al. (2015). Unveiling SEER-CAHPS(R): A new data resource for quality of care research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(5), 641–650.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3162-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kent, E. E., Malinoff, R., Rozjabek, H. M., Ambs, A., Clauser, S. B., Topor, M. A., et al. (2016). Revisiting the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Registry and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (SEER-MHOS) linked data resource for patient-reported outcomes research in older adults with cancer. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 64(1), 186–192.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13888.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    White House Cancer Moonshot Task Force. (2016). Report of the cancer moonshot task force.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gliklich, R. E., Dreyer, N. A., & Leavy, M. B. (2014). Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: A user’s guide (3rd ed.). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cannon, C. (2018). Telehealth, mobile applications, and wearable devices are expanding cancer care beyond walls. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 34(2), 118–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2018.03.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shapiro, M., Johnston, D., Wald, J., & Mon, D. (2012). Patient-generated health data: White paper prepared for the office of the national coordinator for health information technology. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ashley, L., Jones, H., Velikova, G., & Wright, P. (2012). Cancer patients’ and clinicians’ opinions on the best time in secondary care to approach patients for recruitment to longitudinal questionnaire-based research. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(12), 3365–3372.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1518-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beskow, L. M., Sandler, R. S., Millikan, R. C., & Weinberger, M. (2005). Patient perspectives on research recruitment through cancer registries. Cancer Causes and Control, 16(10), 1171–1175.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-005-0407-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aitken, M., de St Jorre, J., Pagliari, C., Jepson, R., & Cunningham-Burley, S. (2016). Public responses to the sharing and linkage of health data for research purposes: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 73.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0153-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Howe, N., Giles, E., Newbury-Birch, D., & McColl, E. (2018). Systematic review of participants’ attitudes towards data sharing: A thematic synthesis. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 23(2), 123–133.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617751555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shabani, M., Bezuidenhout, L., & Borry, P. (2014). Attitudes of research participants and the general public towards genomic data sharing: A systematic literature review. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 14(8), 1053–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1586/14737159.2014.961917.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Spencer, K., Sanders, C., Whitley, E. A., Lund, D., Kaye, J., & Dixon, W. G. (2016). Patient perspectives on sharing anonymized personal health data using a digital system for dynamic consent and research feedback: A qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(4), e66.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fletcher, C., Flight, I., Chapman, J., Fennell, K., & Wilson, C. (2017). The information needs of adult cancer survivors across the cancer continuum: A scoping review. Patient Education and Counseling, 100(3), 383–410.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gensheimer, S. G., Wu, A. W., & Snyder, C. F. (2018). Oh, the places we’ll go: Patient-reported outcomes and electronic health records. Patient, 11(6), 591–598.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0321-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gordon, L. G., Merollini, K. M. D., Lowe, A., & Chan, R. J. (2017). A systematic review of financial toxicity among cancer survivors: We can’t pay the co-pay. Patient, 10(3), 295–309.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0204-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zafar, S. Y., & Abernethy, A. P. (2013). Financial toxicity, Part I: A new name for a growing problem. Oncology, 27(2), 80–81, 149.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). National program of cancer registries: State-specific cancer data access requirements for research. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/data_access/. Accessed 2 January 2019.
  42. 42.
    McLaughlin, R. H., Clarke, C. A., Crawley, L. M., & Glaser, S. L. (2010). Are cancer registries unconstitutional? Social Science and Medicine, 70(9), 1295–1300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Basch, E., Abernethy, A. P., Mullins, C. D., Reeve, B. B., Smith, M. L., Coons, S. J., et al. (2012). Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(34), 4249–4255.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.42.5967.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Slade, A., Chan, A. W., King, M. T., et al. (2018). Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA, 319(5), 483–494.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.21903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reeve, B. B., Mitchell, S. A., Dueck, A. C., Basch, E., Cella, D., Reilly, C. M., et al. (2014). Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. Journal of the National Cancer Institute.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju129.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. G. Smith
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. E. Dunn
    • 2
  • K. Y. Levin
    • 2
  • S. P. Tsakraklides
    • 2
  • S. A. Mitchell
    • 3
  • L. V. van de Poll-Franse
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • K. C. Ward
    • 7
  • C. L. Wiggins
    • 8
  • X. C. Wu
    • 9
  • M. Hurlbert
    • 10
  • N. K. Aaronson
    • 4
  1. 1.Behavioral and Epidemiology Research GroupAmerican Cancer SocietyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.WestatRockvilleUSA
  3. 3.National Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  4. 4.Division of Psychosocial Research and EpidemiologyNetherlands Cancer InstituteAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases (CoRPS)Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of ResearchNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer OrganisationUtrechtThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Emory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  8. 8.New Mexico Tumor RegistryAlbuquerqueUSA
  9. 9.Louisiana Tumor Registry/ School of Public Health Epidemiology ProgramLouisiana State University Health Sciences CenterNew OrleansUSA
  10. 10.Metastatic Breast Cancer AllianceNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations