PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Clinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients\' concerns not being addressed. This study\'s objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern during clinic visits improves cancer patient quality of life (QOL).
UNASSIGNED: This single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a \"was it worth it\" survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups.
UNASSIGNED: Overall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31-87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0-10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow.
UNASSIGNED: Although we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients\' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians.
UNASSIGNED: This single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a \"was it worth it\" survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups.
UNASSIGNED: Overall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31-87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0-10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow.
UNASSIGNED: Although we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients\' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians.
摘要：
■临床医生在患者接触期间的时间有限，这可能导致患者的担忧得不到解决。这项研究的目的是测试电子患者报告的结果生活质量工具（PROQOL）是否可以改善癌症患者的生活质量（QOL）。
■这项单中心非盲前瞻性临床试验将患者（2：1）随机接受PROQOL与常规治疗（UC）。纳入了两个患者队列：血液系统恶性肿瘤（多发性骨髓瘤[MM]或轻链淀粉样变性[AL]）和实体瘤（头颈部[H/N]或妇科[GYN]恶性肿瘤）。主要终点是通过单项目线性模拟自我评估测量的患者报告的12个月时的QOL。对患者的价值和对临床医生工作流程的影响是使用“值得吗”调查来衡量的。该研究有能力检测组间0.5个标准偏差差异。
■共纳入383例患者，171配MM,62AL,113GYN,2016年7月至2018年4月期间为37H/N，随访12个月。男性患者为171例（44.6%），中位年龄为62岁（范围31-87）。最常选择的关注是身体健康(30.9%),其次是癌症诊断和治疗(29.1%)。12个月时，PROQOL的平均QOL为7.12，UC（0-10量表）为6.98，总体上（p=0.56）或在血液学或实体瘤队列中没有组间差异，分别。在患者中，74%的人认为PROQOL工具是值得的，86%的人会再次选择PROQOL，81%的人会推荐给其他人。在临床医生中，95％的人回答说PROQOL是值得的，并且认为PROQOL不会对他们的工作流程产生负面影响。
虽然我们没有证明PROQOL组和UC组之间的QOL差异，但PROQOL工具在确定患者的主要关注点方面具有相当大的价值，对患者和临床医生来说都是值得的。
■这项单中心非盲前瞻性临床试验将患者（2：1）随机接受PROQOL与常规治疗（UC）。纳入了两个患者队列：血液系统恶性肿瘤（多发性骨髓瘤[MM]或轻链淀粉样变性[AL]）和实体瘤（头颈部[H/N]或妇科[GYN]恶性肿瘤）。主要终点是通过单项目线性模拟自我评估测量的患者报告的12个月时的QOL。对患者的价值和对临床医生工作流程的影响是使用“值得吗”调查来衡量的。该研究有能力检测组间0.5个标准偏差差异。
■共纳入383例患者，171配MM,62AL,113GYN,2016年7月至2018年4月期间为37H/N，随访12个月。男性患者为171例（44.6%），中位年龄为62岁（范围31-87）。最常选择的关注是身体健康(30.9%),其次是癌症诊断和治疗(29.1%)。12个月时，PROQOL的平均QOL为7.12，UC（0-10量表）为6.98，总体上（p=0.56）或在血液学或实体瘤队列中没有组间差异，分别。在患者中，74%的人认为PROQOL工具是值得的，86%的人会再次选择PROQOL，81%的人会推荐给其他人。在临床医生中，95％的人回答说PROQOL是值得的，并且认为PROQOL不会对他们的工作流程产生负面影响。
虽然我们没有证明PROQOL组和UC组之间的QOL差异，但PROQOL工具在确定患者的主要关注点方面具有相当大的价值，对患者和临床医生来说都是值得的。
