Advertisement

Usability and acceptability of the electronic self-assessment and care (eSAC) program in advanced ovarian cancer: A mixed methods study

Published:September 20, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.09.010

      Highlights

      • The eSAC program was successfully implemented in an advanced ovarian cancer ambulatory setting.
      • The eSAC program was useful for both patients and clinicians for promoting quality-of-life conversations.
      • The eSAC program was especially helpful with providing entrée into conversations around sexuality and palliative care.
      • Both clinicians and patients found the eSAC program to be acceptable and user-friendly.
      • Clinicians and patients offered practical suggestions for improving future iterations of the eSAC program.

      Abstract

      Objective

      To determine usability and acceptability of the electronic self-assessment and care (eSAC) web-based, patient reported outcome (PRO) program for people with advanced ovarian cancer.

      Methods

      Patient participants recruited from a single ambulatory site were prompted by email to answer symptom/quality of life items prior to each clinic visit. Patient participant acceptability was measured with the Acceptability E-Scale Score (AES). Usability was measured among a subset of patient participants using semi-structured interviews. Clinician participant acceptability and usability were measured via survey and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. A mixed methods analysis was performed.

      Results

      Of 163 eligible patients approached, 143 (87.7%) provided written consent. Patient participants (n = 71) who created an eSAC report prior to at least 3 clinic visits, rated eSAC as acceptable with a mean AES score of 26.19 ± 3.36 (out of 30). Interview data from patient participants (n = 33) revealed that eSAC was easy to use and important to the clinic visit conversation. Data from clinician surveys (n = 8) and focus groups (n = 3) revealed that the eSAC program was acceptable and useful for clinicians. Qualitative analysis suggested process improvements from patients and clinicians for effectiveness in the advanced ovarian cancer setting. Mixed methods analysis demonstrated no major discrepancies between quantitative and qualitative findings, with the qualitative data broadening understanding of quantitative ratings.

      Conclusion

      eSAC was useful and acceptable in this setting. This PRO is a promising strategy for enhancing patient-centered care for people with advanced ovarian cancer.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gynecologic Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Chandra A.
        • Pius C.
        • Nabeel M.
        • et al.
        Ovarian cancer: current status and strategies for improving therapeutic outcomes.
        Cancer Med. 2019; 8: 7018-7031
        • Ledford L.R.
        • Lockwood S.
        Scope and epidemiology of gynecologic cancers: an overview. Paper presented at: Seminars in oncology nursing.
        2019
        • Hilpert F.
        • Du Bois A.
        Patient-reported outcomes in ovarian cancer: are they key factors for decision making?.
        Expert. Rev. Anticancer. Ther. 2018; 18: 3-7
        • Takeuchi E.E.
        • Keding A.
        • Awad N.
        • et al.
        Impact of patient-reported outcomes in oncology: a longitudinal analysis of patient-physician communication.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2011; 29: 2910-2917
        • Friedlander M.
        • King M.
        Patient-reported outcomes in ovarian cancer clinical trials.
        Ann. Oncol. 2013; 24: x64-x68
        • Basch E.
        • Barbera L.
        • Kerrigan C.L.
        • Velikova G.
        Implementation of patient-reported outcomes in routine medical care.
        Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book. 2018; 38: 122-134
        • Yang L.Y.
        • Manhas D.S.
        • Howard A.F.
        • Olson R.
        Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication.
        Support Care Cancer. 2018; 26: 41-60
        • Tariman J.D.
        • Berry D.L.
        • Halpenny B.
        • Wolpin S.
        • Schepp K.
        Validation and testing of the acceptability E-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care.
        Appl. Nurs. Res. 2011; 24: 53-58
        • Berry D.L.
        • Hong F.
        • Halpenny B.
        • et al.
        Electronic self-report assessment for cancer and self-care support: results of a multicenter randomized trial.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2014; 32: 199
        • Tolstrup L.K.
        • Pappot H.
        • Bastholt L.
        • Zwisler A.-D.
        • Dieperink K.B.
        Patient-reported outcomes during immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma: mixed methods study of patients’ and clinicians’ experiences.
        J. Med. Internet Res. 2020; 22e14896
        • Lordon R.J.
        • Mikles S.P.
        • Kneale L.
        • et al.
        How patient-generated health data and patient-reported outcomes affect patient–clinician relationships: a systematic review.
        Health Inform. J. 2020; 26: 2689-2706
        • Berry D.L.
        • Blumenstein B.A.
        • Halpenny B.
        • et al.
        Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2011; 29: 1029
        • Detmar S.B.
        • Muller M.J.
        • Schornagel J.H.
        • Wever L.D.
        • Aaronson N.K.
        Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial.
        JAMA. 2002; 288: 3027-3034
        • Gilbert A.
        • Sebag-Montefiore D.
        • Davidson S.
        • Velikova G.
        Use of patient-reported outcomes to measure symptoms and health related quality of life in the clinic.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 136: 429-439
        • Friedlander M.
        • Mercieca-Bebber R.
        • King M.
        Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in ovarian cancer clinical trials—lost opportunities and lessons learned.
        Ann. Oncol. 2016; 27: i66-i71
        • Cho Y.
        • Zhang H.
        • Harris M.R.
        • Gong Y.
        • Smith E.L.
        • Jiang Y.
        Acceptance and use of home-based electronic symptom self-reporting Systems in Patients with cancer: systematic review.
        J. Med. Internet Res. 2021; 23e24638
        • Moore G.
        • Audrey S.
        • Barker M.
        • et al.
        Process evaluation of complex interventions.
        UK Med. Res. Council (MRC) Guidance. 2014; : 1-133
        • Wolpin S.
        • Berry D.
        • Austin-Seymour M.
        • et al.
        Acceptability of an electronic self report assessment program for patients with cancer.
        Computers Inform. Nurs. CIN. 2008; 26: 332
        • Wolpin S.
        • Stewart M.
        A deliberate and rigorous approach to development of patient-centered technologies. Paper presented at: Seminars in oncology nursing.
        2011
        • Wolpin S.E.
        • Halpenny B.
        • Whitman G.
        • et al.
        Development and usability testing of a web-based cancer symptom and quality-of-life support intervention.
        Health Inform. J. 2015; 21: 10-23
        • Berry D.L.
        • Blonquist T.M.
        • Patel R.A.
        • Halpenny B.
        • McReynolds J.
        Exposure to a patient-centered, web-based intervention for managing cancer symptom and quality of life issues: impact on symptom distress.
        J. Med. Internet Res. 2015; 17e4190
        • Fann J.R.
        • Hong F.
        • Halpenny B.
        • Blonquist T.M.
        • Berry D.L.
        Psychosocial outcomes of an electronic self-report assessment and self-care intervention for patients with cancer: a randomized controlled trial.
        Psycho-Oncology. 2017; 26: 1866-1871
        • Underhill M.L.
        • Hong F.
        • Jones T.
        • et al.
        Feasibility and acceptability of a web site to promote survivorship care in survivors of Hodgkin disease.
        JCO Clin. Cancer Inform. 2017; 1: 1-10
        • Fredericksen R.
        • Harding B.
        • Ruderman S.
        • et al.
        Patient acceptability and usability of a self-administered electronic patient-reported outcome assessment in HIV care: relationship with health behaviors and outcomes.
        AIDS Care. 2020; 1-11
        • Bueno M.
        • Stevens B.
        • Rao M.
        • et al.
        Usability, acceptability, and feasibility of the implementation of infant pain practice change (ImPaC) resource.
        Paediatric Neonatal Pain. 2020; 2: 82-92
        • Micoulaud-Franchi J.-A.
        • Sauteraud A.
        • Olive J.
        • Sagaspe P.
        • Bioulac S.
        • Philip P.
        Validation of the French version of the acceptability E-scale (AES) for mental E-health systems.
        Psychiatry Res. 2016; 237: 196-200
        • Görlach M.G.
        • Schrage T.
        • Bokemeyer C.
        • et al.
        Implementation analysis of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in oncological routine care: an observational study protocol.
        Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 2020; 18: 1-7
        • Jibb L.A.
        • Stevens B.J.
        • Nathan P.C.
        • et al.
        Implementation and preliminary effectiveness of a real-time pain management smartphone app for adolescents with cancer: a multicenter pilot clinical study.
        Pediatr. Blood Cancer. 2017; 64e26554
        • Hsieh H.-F.
        • Shannon S.E.
        Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
        Qual. Health Res. 2005; 15: 1277-1288
        • Yamada J.
        • Kouri A.
        • Simard S.-N.
        • Segovia S.A.
        • Gupta S.
        Barriers and enablers to using a patient-facing electronic questionnaire: a qualitative theoretical domains framework analysis.
        J. Med. Internet Res. 2020; 22e19474