Digital health tools are increasingly being used in cancer care and may include electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) monitoring systems. We examined physicians' perceptions of usability and ...clinical utility of a digital health tool (GIMEMA-ALLIANCE platform) for ePRO monitoring in the real-life practice of patients with hematologic malignancies. This tool allows for the collection and assessment of ePROs with real-time graphical presentation of results to medical staff. Based on a predefined algorithm, automated alerts are sent to medical staff. Participating hematologists completed an online survey on their experience with the platform. Of the 201 patients invited to participate between December 2020 and June 2021 (cut-off date for current analysis), 180 (90%) agreed to enter the platform and had a median age of 57 years. Twenty-three hematologists with a median age of 42 years and an average of 17 years of experience in clinical practice were surveyed. All hematologists agreed or strongly agreed that the platform was easy to use, and 87%, agreed or strongly agreed that ePROs data were useful to enhance communication with their patients. The majority of physicians (78%) accessed the platform at least once per month to consult the symptom and health status profile of their patients. The frequency of access was independent of physician sex (
=0.393) and years of experience in clinical practice (
=0.404). In conclusion, our preliminary results support the clinical utility, from the perspective of the treating hematologist, of integrating ePROs into the routine cancer care of patients with hematologic malignancies.
The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) outbreak is upending current life and generating much anxiety and uncertainty. The effects of home confinement, social isolation, cancelled schools, closed businesses, and ...negative economic impacts have had serious consequences. Hematologic patients (HP) are a subset of highly vulnerable population with increased risk of developing severe COVID-19 symptoms due to their immunocompromised status. These risks have been augmented during the COVID outbreak because of deviations from current standards of care, e.g., reduced visits, treatment supply and access to routine exams. This study investigated the impact of the current pandemic on HP assessing demographics, medical information, mental health and caregiver practical management. In collaboration with AIL (Italian Association against Leukemia) and CNR (National Research Council), a survey was generated and distributed to Italian HP. The general population (GP) were used as controls.
The assessment used the DASS-21 questionnaire, a self-reported, 21 item screening instrument that provides independent measures of depression, stress and anxiety with recommended severity thresholds subscales. The survey was self-administered between April and August, 2020. The questionnaires' reliability was verified based on an analysis of its internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha.
As of 30 June 2020, 1113 HP and 1125 GP completed the survey from 20 Italian Regions. The two population groups were homogeneous by age, gender and distribution and included regions at both high (CHP) and low (CLP) prevalence of infections at the time of the survey.
HP and GP median age was 50 years (range: HP 11- 93; GP 13-85). 61% HP and 68% GP were female; the rest were male. The year of diagnosis of hematological disease ranged from 1965 to 2020; 21.9% had chronic myeloid leukemia, followed by Hodgkin (15.7%) and non-Hodgkin (15.9%) lymphomas, chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (15.9%), multiple myeloma (8.9%), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (4.9%), acute myeloid (5.6%) and lymphoblastic (3.25%) leukemias, other (7%).
1071 HP and 1125 GP responded about their occupation as follows: employed full/part time (38.7% HP , 47.7% GP), retired (19.2% HP,10.8% GP), freelancer (9.2% HP, 12.2% GP), unemployed (6.2% HP, 3.4% GP) , students (4.6% HP, 3.2% GP), company executive (4.1% HP, 4.8% GP), manager (2% HP, 4.7 % GP), cooperative member (0.7% HP , 0.7% GP), housewife (8.5% HP 4.8% GP), other (6.8% HP,7.7% GP). During the pandemic 63.7% HP didn't work and 36.3% did work compared to the GP group (33.8% didn't; 66.2 % did). Where specified, the reasons for not working were: layoffs (10.9% HP, 15.9% GP), lack of work (8.1%HP, 15.6 % GP), vacation/ parental leave (4.4% HP, 3.5% GP), reduced business activity for economic reasons (2.2% HP, 3.3% GP), occasional work (2.1% HP, 5.7% GP), seasonal employment, (0.6% HP,1.1 % GP).
625/1073 HP (58.2%) were in active treatment. Of these, 40.1% were in Day Hospital, 56.4% were outpatient; and 3.5% inpatients. The remaining HP were off therapy (448/1073; 41.8%).
1105 HP and 1127 GP responded to the DASS questionnaire. Extremely severe depression was found in 12.9% HP vs 7% GP; 18.1% HP expressed severe anxiety vs 9.6% GP and extremely severe stress was present in 7.1% HP and 5.3% GP. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the internal homogeneity of the questionnaire was 0.95, confirming the cohorts correctness (0.8 or greater, indicates a very good level of reliability).
Providing care to HP during the pandemic has been challenging for both patients and doctors. Restrictions on visits and lab/instrumental exams, reduced equipment supply and a paucity of personal protection equipment (PPEs) for health care providers and patients have penalized normal routine care. As a result, 38.2% HP postponed or did not attend scheduled therapy and >50% had difficulty obtaining PPEs through normal sources; 57% in CHP and 36% in CLP regions had to buy them themselves.
To our knowledge this is the first report of the impact of the pandemic on psychological distress, work consequences and illness management in HP. Most of HP in this study are outpatients in active treatment. Interesting data emerged from job losses, which is more common among HP. The DASS-21 instrument revealed higher anxiety and depression levels in HP. Detailed results including longitudinal analysis and high versus low geographic prevalence of COVID-19 infections will be presented.
Display omitted
Abruzzese:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bms: Honoraria.
Background
Digital health tools are increasingly being used in oncology practice to better monitor patients' health status. They may include electronic-patient-reported outcome (ePRO) monitoring ...systems, with automated alerts triggered to the physician depending on specific conditions (e.g., when patients report clinically relevant problems). Although implementation of these tools in real-life practice may offer valuable benefits, it is important to assess their usability and utility from the users' standpoint.
Objective
The aim of this study was to evaluate the patients' perception of usability and utility of a digital health tool for ePRO monitoring of patients with hematologic malignancies in real-life practice.
Methods
In December 2020, the GIMEMA Group developed a digital health platform for adult patients with hematologic malignancies (GIMEMA-ALLIANCE platform) with the goal of facilitating patient-centered care. The platform was open to enrollment until December 2022 and involved 26 hospitals. After providing written informed consent, patients received a personal password to access the secure patient portal and complete ePRO questionnaires assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms (EORTC QLQ-C30 and selected items from the EORTC Item Library). Real-time graphical presentation of PRO results is displayed for both patients and physicians. The platform allows hematologists to receive real-time alerts in the presence of clinically important problems and symptoms. For the purpose of this study, a dedicated section in the patient portal was developed to evaluate the usability and utility of the platform. In this section, patients had the possibility to complete the System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS is a 10-item widely used questionnaire to evaluate users' perceived system satisfaction. Its score ranges from 0 to 100 and a score ≥70 is considered a threshold for an acceptable usability. Analyses were performed overall and by age group category, based on the median age of the patient population. Patients also completed an ad-hoc survey consisting of 6 items covering aspects on the utility of the platform, for example in favoring shared decision-making or improving the communication with the treating hematologist. Only patients who have completed the ePRO questionnaires at least twice, i.e. those who had the possibility to sufficiently test its functionalities, were considered eligible for completing the survey on usability and utility of the platform.
Results
Out of the 362 eligible patients, a total of 161 (44%) completed the survey. No difference in age and sex was found between patients who completed or not the survey. The median age of patients who completed the survey was 59 years (IQR: 51 - 67) and 53 (34%) were women. The most prevalent diagnosis was multiple myeloma (n=40, 25%). At the time of survey completion, 69% of the patients were receiving a treatment for their disease. The mean SUS score of the overall population was 80.8 (SD 15.5) and the majority of patients (n=131, 81%) gave a rating ≥70 (the prespecified threshold for the acceptable usability). The mean SUS score for the younger and the older groups was 80.5 (SD 14.9) and 81.4 (SD 16), respectively. Eighty-eight percent of patients agreed or strongly agreed that the platform was easy to use, 83% felt very confident in using the platform, and 72% found the various functionalities offered by the platform well integrated (Figure 1). Positive feedbacks on the utility of the platform were also collected. For example, 71% of patients considered the ePRO questionnaires useful for their health conditions and 63% would recommend its use to other patients. However, amongst the patients who had visits at the clinic (n=127), only 39% reported that their doctor discussed ePRO results with them, and this may explain the lower agreement for some items (Figure 2). For example, 38% of the patients strongly agreed/agreed that the platform helped them to improve the communication with their doctor, while 44% neither agreed or disagreed and 18% strongly disagreed/disagreed.
Conclusion
This study showed a good usability and utility of the GIMEMA-ALLIANCE platform from the patients' perspective, and this was true for younger and older patients. Future areas of improvement should include actions to facilitate physicians in discussing ePRO results during the clinical encounter with their patients.
Background
There is now great interest in using digital health tools to monitor patients' health status in real-world practice. Such tools often include electronic-patient-reported outcome (ePRO) ...systems in which symptoms questions are included into online interfaces for patient self-reporting, with real-time alerts triggered to the treating physician if severe symptoms or problems are reported. However, there is little information about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems, and this is particularly true in the area of hematology.
Objectives
This study investigates physicians' perceptions of usability and clinical utility of using remote ePROs in routine practice of patients with hematologic malignancies and explored implications in the delivery of patient care.
Patients and Methods
Remote ePROs are being gathered since December 2020 by the ALLIANCE Digital Health Platform, whose details of the development process have been previously described (Efficace F. et al., JMIR Res Protoc. 2021 Jun 1;10:e25271). Adult patients diagnosed with any hematologic malignancy are eligible to enter the platform, after having provided written informed consent. Aspects related to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), symptoms and medication adherence are assessed via validated PRO measures. The platform allows for real-time graphical presentation to physicians of individual patient symptoms and HRQoL outcomes. Based on a pre-defined algorithm, which includes the presence of clinically important problems and symptoms, the platform triggers automated alerts to the treating haematologists and medical staff. The definition of clinically important problems and symptoms is based on previously defined evidence-based thresholds (Giesinger J. et al., J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;118:1-8). We asked treating haematologists a feedback about their experience in using the platform, by an ad hoc web-survey consisting of 27 items covering several domains, including: usability and benefits, current use, evaluation of patient health-status, symptoms and adverse events, as well as physician-patient communication. We summarized characteristics of enrolled patients and treating haematologists by proportions, mean, median and range. We also used logistic regression analysis to check the possible association of characteristics of haematologists with survey results.
Results
Of the 201 patients invited to participate between December 2020 and June 2021 (cut-off date for current analysis), 180 (90%) accepted to enter the ALLIANCE platform, currently activated in 19 centers. The median age of patients was 57 years (range 21-91) and 58% were males. The majority were diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia (n=32, 18%) and multiple myeloma (n=31, 17%) and were in stable disease (n=89, 49%). Twenty-three hematologists (44% males) with a median age of 42 years (range 31-63) and an average 17 years (range 5-34) of experience in clinical practice, completed the survey. The majority of physicians (78%) accessed the platform at least once per month (of whom 39% at least once per week), regardless the alerts sent by the system about patients' clinically relevant problems. The frequency of access on a regular basis was also independent of physician sex (p=0.393) and years of experience in clinical practice (p=0.404). Overall, 57% of hematologists discussed often or very often ePROs with their patients, while 83% and 61% deemed this information helpful to better identify symptomatic adverse events (AEs) of grade 1-2 or of grade 3-4, respectively (see figure). Also, 87% and 91% of hematologists found ePROs useful to improve physician-patient communication and the accuracy of documentation of symptomatic AEs (regardless of severity), respectively. Physicians' responses to selected items of the survey are reported in the figure.
Conclusions:
Current findings support the clinical utility, from the perspective of the treating physician, of integrating ePROs into routine cancer care of patients with hematologic malignancies.
Display omitted
Efficace: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Grants (to Institution); Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Grants (to Institution). Breccia: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Fazio: Janseen: Honoraria. Petrucci: Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; GSK: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Rigacci: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Gilead Science: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Tafuri: Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Siragusa: Novartis, CSL, Behring, Amgen, Novonoridsk, SOBI, Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Patriarca: Incyte: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Argenix: Honoraria. Luppi: Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Gilead Science: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria. Vignetti: Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria.
PDF
