Evaluation of point-of-care PRO assessment in clinic settings: integration, parallel-forms reliability, and patient acceptability of electronic QOL measures during clinic visits
- 437 Downloads
Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, has become an important component of healthcare that measures the impact of disease and medical treatment on patient health. Collecting PROs during point-of-care assessments and integrating them into the clinical setting, however, remains challenging. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the reliability, usability, and acceptability of point-of-care electronic PRO assessments implemented in a prostate cancer clinic.
Fifty subjects completed paper–pencil and computerized formats of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), a validated, condition-specific QOL instrument, at separate times before treatment. Parallel-forms reliability was evaluated by comparing mean scores, variations in response distribution, and correlations between administration formats. Correlation coefficients of at least 0.70 were used for reliability testing. Differences between administration forms, indicating potential bias, were compared using the signed-rank test. A 6-item acceptability scale was also used to evaluate patient acceptability and satisfaction with the electronic format.
Mean scores and standard deviations were similar between the paper–pencil and electronic forms across all EPIC instrument domains, and no assessment bias was found. Each EPIC domain demonstrated a high reliability between administration formats (correlation coefficients: 0.70–0.98). The majority (>90 %) of respondents found that the computerized QOL format was user friendly and simple to use.
Point-of-care computerized QOL assessments were reliable and acceptable to patients in this study, supporting the feasibility of PRO integration at the point-of-care in clinical settings.
KeywordsElectronic questionnaire Quality of life Patient-reported outcomes Clinical tools
Supported, in part, by the American Urological Association Foundation.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 3.Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hjollund, N. H., Larsen, L. P., Biering, K., Johnsen, S. P., Riiskjaer, E., & Schougaard, L. M. (2014). Use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures at group and patient levels: Experiences from the generic integrated PRO system, WestChronic. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 3(1), e5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Montague, D. K., Barada, J. H., Belker, A. M., Levine, L. A., Nadig, P. W., Roehrborn, C. G., et al. (1996). Clinical guidelines panel on erectile dysfunction: Summary report on the treatment of organic erectile dysfunction. The American Urological Association. The Journal of Urology, 156(6), 2007–2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Wei, J. T., Dunn, R. L., Litwin, M. S., Sandler, H. M., & Sanda, M. G. (2000). Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology, 56(6), 899–905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Chang, P., Szymanski, K. M., Dunn, R. L., Chipman, J. J., Litwin, M. S., Nguyen, P. L., et al. (2011). Expanded prostate cancer index composite for clinical practice: Development and validation of a practical health related quality of life instrument for use in the routine clinical care of patients with prostate cancer. Journal of Urology, 186(3), 865–872.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Blum, D., Raj, S. X., Oberholzer, R., Riphagen, II, Strasser, F., Kaasa, S., & Euro Impact, E. I. M. P. C. R. T. (2014). Computer-based clinical decision support systems and patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0100-1.
- 25.Efficace, F., Jacobs, M., Pusic, A., Greimel, E., Piciocchi, A., Kieffer, J. M., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of gynaecological cancers: Investigating methodological quality and impact on clinical decision-making. European Journal of Cancer, 50(11), 1925–1941.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Rutherford, C., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rice, H., Costa, D., & King, M. (2014). Mode of administration of patient-reported outcomes (pro) measures: A systematic review. In Paper presented at the Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology.Google Scholar
- 29.Vickers, A. J., Savage, C. J., Shouery, M., Eastham, J. A., Scardino, P. T., & Basch, E. M. (2010). Validation study of a web-based assessment of functional recovery after radical prostatectomy. Health Quality Life Outcomes, 8, 82.Google Scholar
- 30.Abernethy, A. P., Herndon, J. E, 2nd, Wheeler, J. L., Day, J. M., Hood, L., Patwardhan, M., et al. (2009). Feasibility and acceptability to patients of a longitudinal system for evaluating cancer-related symptoms and quality of life: Pilot study of an e/Tablet data-collection system in academic oncology. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 37(6), 1027–1038.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Nama, V., Nordin, A., & Bryant, A. (2013). Patient-reported outcome measures for follow-up after gynaecological cancer treatment. Cochrane Database System Review, 11, CD010299.Google Scholar