Purpose Although patient-reported cancer symptoms and quality-of-life issues (SQLIs) have been promoted as essential to a comprehensive assessment, efficient and efficacious methods have not been widely tested in clinical settings. The purpose of this trial was to determine the effect of the Electronic Self-Report Assessment–Cancer (ESRA-C) on the likelihood of SQLIs discussed between clinicians and patients with cancer in ambulatory clinic visits. Secondary objectives included comparison of visit duration between groups and usefulness of the ESRA-C as reported by clinicians. Patients and Methods This randomized controlled trial was conducted in 660 patients with various cancer diagnoses and stages at two institutions of a comprehensive cancer center. Patient-reported SQLIs were automatically displayed on a graphical summary and provided to the clinical team before an on-treatment visit (n = 327); in the control group, no summary was provided (n = 333). SQLIs were scored for level of severity or distress. One on-treatment clinic visit was audio recorded for each participant and then scored for discussion of each SQLI. We hypothesized that problematic SQLIs would be discussed more often when the intervention was delivered to the clinicians. Results The likelihood of SQLIs being discussed differed by randomized group and depended on whether an SQLI was first reported as problematic (P = .032). Clinic visits were similar with regard to duration between groups, and clinicians reported the summary as useful. Conclusion The ESRA-C is the first electronic self-report application to increase discussion of SQLIs in a US randomized clinical trial.

A B S T R A C T PurposeThe purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effect of a Web-based, self-report assessment and educational intervention on symptom distress during cancer therapy. Patients and MethodsA total of 752 ambulatory adult participants were randomly assigned to symptom/quality-of-life (SxQOL) screening at four time points (control) versus screening, targeted education, communication coaching, and the opportunity to track/graph SxQOL over time (intervention). A summary of the participant-reported data was delivered to clinicians at each time point in both groups. All participants used the assessment before a new therapeutic regimen, at 3 to 6 weeks and 6 to 8 weeks later, completing the final assessment at the end of therapy. Change in Symptom Distress Scale-15 (SDS-15) score from pretreatment to end of study was compared using analysis of covariance and regression analysis adjusting for selected variables. ResultsWe detected a significant difference between study groups in mean SDS-15 score change from baseline to end of study: 1.27 (standard deviation [SD], 6.7) in the control group (higher distress) versus Ϫ0.04 (SD, 5.8) in the intervention group (lower distress). SDS-15 score was reduced by an estimated 1.21 (95% CI, 0.23 to 2.20; P ϭ .02) in the intervention group. Baseline SDS-15 score (P Ͻ .001) and clinical service (P ϭ .01) were predictive. Multivariable analyses suggested an interaction between age and study group (P ϭ .06); in subset analysis, the benefit of intervention was strongest in those age Ͼ 50 years (P ϭ .002). ConclusionWeb-based self-care support and communication coaching added to SxQOL screening reduced symptom distress in a multicenter sample of participants with various diagnoses during and after active cancer treatment. Participants age Ͼ 50 years, in particular, may have benefited from the intervention.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this trial was to compare usual patient education plus the Internet-based, Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, versus usual education alone, on conflict associated with decision making, plus explore time-to-treatment and treatment choice. METHODS A randomized, multi-center clinical trial was conducted with measures at baseline, one and six months. Men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer who sought consultation at urology, radiation oncology or multi-disciplinary clinics in four geographically-distinct American cities were recruited. Intervention group participants used the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, a decision support system comprised of customized text and video coaching regarding potential outcomes, influential factors, and communication with care providers. The primary outcome, patient-reported decisional conflict, was evaluated over time using Generalized Estimating Equations to fit generalized linear models. Additional outcomes, time-to-treatment, treatment choice and program acceptability/usefulness, were explored. RESULTS A total of 494 eligible men were randomized (266 intervention; 228 control). The intervention reduced adjusted decisional conflict over time as compared with the control group, for the uncertainty score (estimate −3.61; (confidence interval, −7.01,−0.22) and values clarity (estimate −3.57; confidence interval (−5.85,−1.30) Borderline effect was seen for the total decisional conflict score (estimate −1.75; confidence interval (−3.61,0.11). Time-to-treatment was comparable between groups, while undecided men in the intervention group chose brachytherapy more often than in the control group. Acceptability and usefulness were highly rated. CONCLUSION The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate is the first intervention to significantly reduce decisional conflict in a multi-center trial of American men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. Our findings support efficacy of P3P for addressing decision uncertainty and facilitating patient selection of a prostate cancer treatment that is consistent with the patient values and preferences.

PURPOSE To 1) evaluate the feasibility of touch screen depression screening in cancer patients using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), 2) evaluate the construct validity of the PHQ-9 using the touch screen modality, and 3) examine the prevalence and severity of depression using this screening modality. METHODS The PHQ-9 was placed in a web-based survey within a study of the clinical impact of computerized symptom and quality of life screening. Patients in medical oncology, radiation oncology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) clinics used the program on a touch screen computer in waiting rooms prior to therapy (T1) and during therapy (T2). Responses of depressed mood or anhedonia (PHQ-2 cardinal depression symptoms) triggered additional items. PHQ-9 scores were provided to the oncology team in real-time. RESULTS Among 342 patients enrolled, 33 (9.6%) at T1 and 69 (20.2%) at T2 triggered the full PHQ-9 by endorsing at least one cardinal symptom. Feasibility was high, with at least 97% completing the PHQ-2 and at least 96% completing the PHQ-9 when triggered and a mean completion time of about 2 minutes. The PHQ-9 had good construct validity. Medical oncology patients had the highest percent of positive screens (12.9%) at T1, while HSCT patients had the highest percent (30.5%) at T2. Using this method, 21 (6.1%) at T1 and 54 (15.8%) at T2 of the total sample had moderate to severe depression. CONCLUSION The PHQ-9 administered on a touch screen computer is feasible and provides valid depression data in a diverse cancer population.

Objective To describe relationships between use of the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) decision support system and patient characteristics, and perceived preparation for decision making (PrepDM), satisfaction and decisional regret in the context of prostate cancer treatment choice. Methods 494 men with localized prostate cancer (LPC) were randomized to receive the P3P intervention or usual care and completed pre-treatment, 1-month and 6-month outcome measures. Multivariable linear regression models were fit for each outcome. Results Physician consult visits prior to enrollment, race/ethnicity, and use of clinic-provided books were significant predictors of perceived PrepDM at 1-month. Prior Internet use and PrepDM significantly predicted 6-month decision satisfaction. Decisional regret was significantly predicted by demographics, anxiety, PrepDM score, and EPIC bowel domain score at 6-months. Use of P3P did not predict any outcome. Practice Implications Information received and used between biopsy and the treatment options consult visit is likely to make a difference in decision satisfaction. Conclusion While the P3P intervention did not significantly affect the outcomes, pre-enrollment information and preparation were strong predictors of the 1 and 6-months outcomes. Decision regret was significantly influenced by personal characteristics and post-treatment symptoms/side effects.

The performance of the Acceptability E-scale was tested in a sample of 627 adult and older adult patients from various oncology clinics who completed an electronic symptoms survey. The revised Acceptability E-scale has strong psychometric properties and can be useful in assessing the acceptability and usability of computerized health-related programs in oncology and other health population.

BackgroundEffective eHealth interventions can benefit a large number of patients with content intended to support self-care and management of both chronic and acute conditions. Even though usage statistics are easily logged in most eHealth interventions, usage or exposure has rarely been reported in trials, let alone studied in relationship to effectiveness.ObjectiveThe intent of the study was to evaluate use of a fully automated, Web-based program, the Electronic Self Report Assessment-Cancer (ESRA-C), and how delivery and total use of the intervention may have affected cancer symptom distress.MethodsPatients at two cancer centers used ESRA-C to self-report symptom and quality of life (SxQOL) issues during therapy. Participants were randomized to ESRA-C assessment only (control) or the ESRA-C intervention delivered via the Internet to patients’ homes or to a tablet at the clinic. The intervention enabled participants to self-monitor SxQOL and receive self-care education and customized coaching on how to report concerns to clinicians. Overall and voluntary intervention use were defined as having ≥2 exposures, and one non-prompted exposure to the intervention, respectively. Factors associated with intervention use were explored with Fisher’s exact test. Propensity score matching was used to select a sample of control participants similar to intervention participants who used the intervention. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare change in Symptom Distress Scale (SDS-15) scores from pre-treatment to end-of-study by groups in the matched sample.ResultsRadiation oncology participants used the intervention, overall and voluntarily, more than medical oncology and transplant participants. Participants who were working and had more than a high school education voluntarily used the intervention more. The SDS-15 score was reduced by an estimated 1.53 points (P=.01) in the intervention group users compared to the matched control group.ConclusionsThe intended effects of a Web-based, patient-centered intervention on cancer symptom distress were modified by intervention use frequency. Clinical and personal demographics influenced voluntary use.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00852852; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00852852 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6YwAfwWl7).

In this multicenter trial the decision aid significantly reduced decisional conflict. Other variables impacted conflict and modified the effect of the decision aid, notably risk classification, consultations and resources. P3P is an effective adjunct for shared decision making in men with localized prostate cancer.