| Title |
Study protocol for a controlled trial of an eHealth system utilising patient reported outcome measures for personalised treatment and care: PROMPT-Care 2.0
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-018-4729-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Afaf Girgis, Ivana Durcinoska, Martha Gerges, Nasreen Kaadan, Anthony Arnold, Joseph Descallar, Geoff P. Delaney, on behalf of the PROMPT-Care Program Group |
| Abstract |
Routine assessment and clinical utilisation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can lead to improved patient outcomes. The PROMPT-Care eHealth system facilitates PRO data capture from cancer patients, data linkage and retrieval to support clinical decisions, patient self-management, and shared care. Pilot testing demonstrated acceptability and feasibility of PROMPT-Care Version 1.0. This study aims to implement PROMPT-Care Version 2.0 and determine its efficacy in reducing emergency department (ED) presentations, and improving chemotherapy delivery and health service referrals, compared to usual care. Groups eligible to participate in the intervention arm of this controlled trial are patients receiving cancer care (including follow-up). PROMPT-Care patients will complete monthly assessments (distress, symptoms, unmet needs) until voluntary withdrawal or death. In Version 1.0, the care team accessed patients' clinical feedback reports in 'real time' to guide their care, and patients received links to support their self-management, tailored to their PRO responses. Version 2.0 was extended to include: i) an additional alert system notifying the care team of ongoing unresolved clinical issues, ii) patient self-management resources, and iii) an auto-populated Treatment Summary and Survivorship Care Plan (SCP). The control population will be patients extracted from hospital databases of the general cancer patient population who were seen at the participating cancer therapy centres during the study period, with a ratio of 1:4 of intervention to control patients. A minimum sample size of 1760 (352 intervention and 1408 control) patients will detect a 14% reduction in the number of ED presentations (primary outcome) in the PROMPT-Care group compared with the control group. Intervention patients will provide feedback on system usability and value of the self-management materials; oncology staff will provide feedback on usefulness of PROMPT-Care reports, response to clinical alerts, impact on routine care, and usefulness of the SCPs; and GPs will provide feedback on the usefulness of the SCPs and attitudes towards shared-care models of survivorship care planning. This study will inform the PROMPT-Care system's impact on healthcare utilisation and utility as an alternative model for ongoing supportive care. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12616000615482 ) on 12th May 2016 ( www.anzctr.org.au ). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 21 | 46% |
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Israel | 1 | 2% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 54% |
| Scientists | 18 | 39% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 185 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 11% |
| Researcher | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 37 | 20% |
| Unknown | 48 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 18% |
| Psychology | 11 | 6% |
| Engineering | 10 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Unknown | 57 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,389,064
of 25,517,918 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#190
of 9,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,734
of 342,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#5
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,517,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,010 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.