Patient and Staff Experiences of Embedding Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Distress Screening and Quality of Life Assessment, Into Routine Melanoma Care: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Publisher: Wiley Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 9214524 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1099-1611 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 10579249 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Psychooncology Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: Chichester, W. Sussex, England : Wiley, c1992-

Melanoma*/psychology ; Melanoma*/therapy ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures* ; Quality of Life*; Humans ; Female ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Australia ; Adult ; Aged ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Qualitative Research ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Skin Neoplasms/psychology ; Skin Neoplasms/therapy ; Psychological Distress ; Stress, Psychological/psychology ; Health Personnel/psychology

Objective: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly collected in melanoma research. However, they are not used to guide immediate clinical care in Australia. This study explored the views and experiences of patients with Stage III melanoma and clinic staff during implementation of an electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in melanoma (ePROMs-MEL) pilot to assess distress and quality of life.
Methods: A prospective mixed-methods study in specialist melanoma clinics in Sydney, Australia between May 2021 and February 2023. Forty-two post-ePROMs implementation surveys and 17 semi-structured interviews were undertaken among patients and staff (including oncologists, melanoma nurses and clinic managers). Survey responses were tabulated using Likert scales and interview transcripts analysed thematically.
Results: Of the 31 patient survey responses, over 90% reported ePROMs were easy to complete and measured important components of their health and wellbeing. Of the 11 staff surveys, over 50% reported ePROMs to be useful when allied health referrals were accessible but found implementation disruptive to clinic workflows. Six themes about ePROMs in clinical care emerged during data analysis: (1) promoting self-reflection; (2) conversation-starters; (3) timing and setting; (4) fit for purpose questionnaires; (5) resource issues; (6) value and limitations of ePROMs.
Conclusion: Patients overwhelmingly supported the real-time collection of ePROMs for their immediate care. In contrast, staff support was conditional on resources to maximise clinical care efficiency and minimise administrative burden.
Trial Registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12620001149954.aspx.
(© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

E. T. Bantug, T. Coles, K. C. Smith, C. F. Snyder, J. Rouette, and M. D. Brundage, “Graphical Displays of Patient‐Reported Outcomes (PRO) for Use in Clinical Practice: What Makes a Pro Picture Worth a Thousand Words?,” Patient Education and Counseling 99, no. 4 (2016): 483–490, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.027.
E. Basch, A. M. Deal, A. C. Dueck, et al., “Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient‐Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment,” JAMA 318, no. 2 (2017): 197–198, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7156.
Y. B. Bouazza, I. Chiairi, O. El Kharbouchi, et al., “Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in the Management of Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review,” Lung Cancer 113 (2017): 140–151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.09.011.
A. S. Kargo, A. Coulter, P. T. Jensen, and K. D. Steffensen, “Proactive Use of PROMs in Ovarian Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Ovarian Research 12, no. 1 (2019): 63, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048‐019‐0538‐9.
S. D. Passik, W. Dugan, M. V. McDonald, B. Rosenfeld, D. E. Theobald, and S. Edgerton, “Oncologists' Recognition of Depression in Their Patients With Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 16, no. 4 (1998): 1594–1600, https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.4.1594.
E. M. Webster, W. M. Burke, H. M. Ware, et al., “Patient Reported Outcomes in Evaluation of Chemotherapy Toxicity in Women With Gynecologic Malignancies: A Pilot Study,” Gynecologic Oncology 150, no. 3 (2018): 487–493, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.07.008.
N. A. Kasparian, J. K. McLoone, and P. N. Butow, “Psychological Responses and Coping Strategies Among Patients With Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Archives of Dermatology 145, no. 12 (2009): 1415–1427, https://doi.org/10.1001/archdermatol.2009.308.
J. R. Thompson, R. A. Salam, S. Hanna, M. Dieng, R. P. M. Saw, and I. Bartula, “A Systematic Review With Evidence Mapping of Supportive Care Interventions for Melanoma Patients and Caregivers,” Cancer Medicine 12, no. 12 (2023): 13758–13773, https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6012.
N. A. Kasparian, “Psychological Stress and Melanoma: Are We Meeting Our Patients' Psychological Needs?,” Clinics in Dermatology 31, no. 1 (2013): 41–46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2011.11.005.
E. A. Fradgley, E. Byrnes, K. McCarter, et al., “A Cross‐Sectional Audit of Current Practices and Areas for Improvement of Distress Screening and Management in Australian Cancer Services: Is There a Will and a Way to Improve?,” Supportive Care in Cancer 28, no. 1 (2020): 249–259, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520‐019‐04801‐5.
J. Dunn, M. Watson, J. F. Aitken, and M. K. Hyde, “Systematic Review of Psychosocial Outcomes for Patients With Advanced Melanoma,” Psycho‐Oncology 26, no. 11 (2017): 1722–1731, https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4290.
Insight Economics MIAaMPA, State of the Nation. A Report into Melanoma – A National Health Priority (Sydney: Final Report, 2022).
P. Butow, H. L. Shepherd, J. Cuddy, et al., “Staff Perspectives on the Feasibility of a Clinical Pathway for Anxiety and Depression in Cancer Care, and Mid‐Implementation Adaptations,” BMC Health Services Research 22, no. 1 (2022): 192, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913‐022‐07532‐2.
R. Campbell, A. Ju, M. T. King, and C. Rutherford, “Perceived Benefits and Limitations of Using Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice With Individual Patients: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies,” Quality of Life Research 31, no. 6 (2022): 1597–1620, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136‐021‐03003‐z.
L. Carfora, C. M. Foley, P. Hagi‐Diakou, et al., “Patients' Experiences and Perspectives of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Care: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta‐Synthesis,” PLoS One 17, no. 4 (2022): e0267030, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267030.
A. Foster, L. Croot, J. Brazier, J. Harris, and A. O'Cathain, “The Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Organisations Delivering Health Related Services: A Systematic Review of Reviews,” Journal of Patient‐Reported Outcomes 2, no. 1 (2018): 46, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687‐018‐0072‐3.
L. Geerligs, N. M. Rankin, H. L. Shepherd, and P. Butow, “Hospital‐Based Interventions: A Systematic Review of Staff‐Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation Processes,” Implementation Science 13, no. 1 (2018): 36, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012‐018‐0726‐9.
B. Koczwara, R. Knowles, L. Beatty, et al., “Implementing a Web‐Based System of Screening for Symptoms and Needs Using Patient‐Reported Outcomes in People With Cancer,” Supportive Care in Cancer 31, no. 1 (2022): 69, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520‐022‐07547‐9.
H. Nguyen, P. Butow, H. Dhillon, and P. Sundaresan, “A Review of the Barriers to Using Patient‐Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Routine Cancer Care,” Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 68, no. 2 (2021): 186–195, https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.421.
C. Rutherford, R. Campbell, M. Tinsley, et al., “Implementing Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures Into Clinical Practice Across NSW: Mixed Methods Evaluation of the First Year,” Applied Research in Quality of Life 16, no. 3 (2021): 1265–1284, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482‐020‐09817‐2.
N. A. Roberts, K. Alexander, D. Wyld, and M. Janda, “What Is Needed by Staff to Implement PROMs into Routine Oncology Care? A Qualitative Study With the Multi‐Disciplinary Team,” European Journal of Cancer Care 28, no. 6 (2019): e13167, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13167.
N. A. Roberts, M. Janda, A. M. Stover, K. E. Alexander, D. Wyld, and A. Mudge, “ISOQOL PROMs/PREMs in Clinical Practice Implementation Science Work Group. The Utility of the Implementation Science Framework ‘Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services’(i‐PARIHS) and the Facilitator Role for Introducing Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in a Medical Oncology Outpatient Department,” Quality of Life Research 30, no. 11 (2021): 3063–3071, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136‐020‐02669‐1.
K. Dempsey, R. Saw, I. Bartula, et al., “Embedding Electronic Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures Into Routine Care for Patients With Stage III MELanoma (ePROMs‐MEL): Protocol for a Prospective, Longitudinal, Mixed‐Methods Pilot Study,” BMJ Open 12, no. 12 (2022): e066852, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen‐2022‐066852.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN®), “NCCN Distress Thermometer and Problem List for Patients,” Version 22018, 02/23/18 (2018).
M. Herdman, C. Gudex, A. Lloyd, et al., “Development and Preliminary Testing of the New Five‐Level Version of EQ‐5D (EQ‐5D‐5L),” Quality of Life Research 20, no. 10 (2011): 1727–1736, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136‐011‐9903‐x.
K. A. Donovan, L. Grassi, H. L. McGinty, and P. B. Jacobsen, “Validation of the Distress Thermometer Worldwide: State of the Science,” Psycho‐Oncology 23, no. 3 (2014): 241–250, https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3430.
X. Ma, J. Zhang, W. Zhong, et al., “The Diagnostic Role of a Short Screening Tool‐‐the Distress Thermometer: A Meta‐Analysis,” Supportive Care in Cancer 22, no. 7 (2014): 1741–1755, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520‐014‐2143‐1.
J. B. F. Winstanley and T. Young, “Melanoma Concerns Questionnaire© [MCQ‐28],” Version 1 31 Jan (2020).
S. H. Lovibond, P. F. Lovibond, and Psychology Foundation of A, Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales, 2nd ed. (Sydney, N.S.W.: Psychology Foundation of Australia Sydney, N.S.W. 1995).
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group, “Quality of Life Questionnaire‐Cancer 30 (QLQ‐C30),” Version 30 (1995).
Y. S. G. E. Lincoln, Naturalistic Inquiry (London: SAGE Publications, 1985).
S. J. Tracy, Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact (Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell, 2013).
I. Vedel, N. Kaur, Q. N. Hong, et al., “Why and How to Use Mixed Methods in Primary Health Care Research,” Family Practice 36, no. 3 (2019 May 23): 365–368, https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmy127.
A. Tong, P. Sainsbury, and J. Craig, “Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): A 32‐Item Checklist for Interviews and Focus Groups,” International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19, no. 6 (2007): 349–357, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
B. Koczwara, J. Bonnamy, P. Briggs, et al., “Patient‐Reported Outcomes and Personalised Cancer Care,” Medical Journal of Australia 214, no. 9 (2021): 406–408.e1, https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50893.
K. T. Bui, R. Liang, B. E. Kiely, C. Brown, H. M. Dhillon, and P. Blinman, “Scanxiety: A Scoping Review About Scan‐Associated Anxiety,” BMJ Open 11, no. 5 (2021): e043215, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen‐2020‐043215.
A. Agarwal, T. Pain, J. F. Levesque, et al., “Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to Guide Clinical Care: Recommendations and Challenges,” Medical Journal of Australia 216, no. 1 (2022): 9–11, https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51355.
J. Greenhalgh, S. Dalkin, K. Gooding, et al., Functionality and Feedback: A Realist Synthesis of the Collation, Interpretation and Utilisation of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures Data to Improve Patient Care (Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2017).
K. Brower, M. Schmitt‐Boshnick, M. Haener, S. Wilks, and A. Soprovich, “The Use of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures in Primary Care: Applications, Benefits and Challenges,” supplement, Journal of Patient‐Reported Outcomes 5, no. S2 (2021): 84, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687‐021‐00361‐7.

#1135285 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence in Melanoma; GNT2007839 NHMRC Investigator

Keywords: cancer; digital health; health services research; melanoma; mental health; patient‐reported outcome measures; quality of life; stress–psychological; value‐based healthcare

Date Created: 20241218 Date Completed: 20241218 Latest Revision: 20241218

20241219

10.1002/pon.70053

39694881