背景:在癌症临床护理中,使用电子患者报告结果测量(ePROMs)对患者报告结果进行常规测量正在全球范围内获得动力。然而,需要深入了解支持EPROM干预措施的机制,从而为改善健康结局的最佳设计提供依据.
目的:本研究旨在确定支撑EPROM干预措施有效性的隐含机制,并发展有关EPROM干预措施如何以及何时改善健康结果的程序理论。
方法:对癌症临床治疗中的EPROM干预的文献进行了现实性综合。构建了EPROM干预的概念框架,以定义审查的范围并构建初始计划理论。OvidMEDLINE的文献检索,OvidEmbase,Scopus,和CINAHL,辅以引文跟踪,进行了识别相关文献的开发,精炼,和测试程序理论。使用混合方法评估工具对相关研究进行质量评估。
结果:总体而言,61项研究包括在现实主义综合中:15项(25%)混合方法研究,9项(15%)定性研究,13项(21%)描述性研究,21项(34%)随机对照试验,和3(5%)准实验研究。总的来说,关于EPROM干预的重要组成部分-远程自我报告,开发了3种初始程序理论,对临床医生的实时反馈,和临床医生-患者电信。完善的理论认为,远程自我报告使患者能够准确识别和报告症状,并使他们能够将这些症状传达给临床医生,实时反馈提示临床医生主动管理症状,临床医师与患者之间的电话互动和诊所之间的电子互动通过重塑临床医师与患者的沟通方式来改善症状管理。然而,如果ePROM成为患者疾病的提醒,并且对患者没有意义,并且对临床医生的实时反馈缺乏相关性并增加了工作量,则干预措施可能无法实现预期的益处.
结论:通过EPROM干预改善健康结果的关键是通过远程症状自我报告实现更好的症状报告和沟通,通过实时临床医生反馈促进症状的主动管理,并促进临床医生与患者的互动。患者参与自我报告和临床医生参与响应反馈是至关重要的,并且可以在改善结果方面相互加强。有效的EPROM干预措施可能会从根本上改变临床医生和患者之间的互动方式。
The routine measurement of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical care using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is gaining momentum worldwide. However, a deep understanding of the mechanisms underpinning ePROM interventions that could inform their optimal design to improve health outcomes is needed.
This study aims to identify the implicit mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of ePROM interventions and develop program theories about how and when ePROM interventions improve health outcomes.
A realist synthesis of the literature about ePROM interventions in cancer clinical care was performed. A conceptual framework of ePROM interventions was constructed to define the scope of the review and frame the initial program theories. Literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL, supplemented by citation tracking, were performed to identify relevant literature to develop, refine, and test program theories. Quality appraisal of relevant studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
Overall, 61 studies were included in the realist synthesis: 15 (25%) mixed methods studies, 9 (15%) qualitative studies, 13 (21%) descriptive studies, 21 (34%) randomized controlled trials, and 3 (5%) quasi-experimental studies. In total, 3 initial program theories were developed regarding the salient components of ePROM interventions-remote self-reporting, real-time feedback to clinicians, and clinician-patient telecommunication. The refined theories posit that remote self-reporting enables patients to recognize and report symptoms accurately and empowers them to communicate these to clinicians, real-time feedback prompts clinicians to manage symptoms proactively, and clinician-patient telephone interactions and e-interactions between clinic encounters improve symptom management by reshaping how clinicians and patients communicate. However, the intervention may not achieve the intended benefit if ePROMs become a reminder to patients of their illness and are not meaningful to them and when real-time feedback to clinicians lacks relevance and increases the workload.
The key to improving health outcomes through ePROM interventions is enabling better symptom reporting and communication through remote symptom self-reporting, promoting proactive management of symptoms through real-time clinician feedback, and facilitating clinician-patient interactions. Patient engagement with self-reporting and clinician engagement in responding to feedback are vital and may reinforce each other in improving outcomes. Effective ePROM interventions might fundamentally alter how clinicians and patients interact between clinic encounters.