» Articles » PMID: 28482877

Electronic Patient Self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and ADvice (eRAPID): a Randomised Controlled Trial in Systemic Cancer Treatment

Overview
Journal BMC Cancer
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Oncology
Date 2017 May 10
PMID 28482877
Citations 31
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: eRAPID (electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice) is an internet based system for patients to self-report symptoms and side effects (adverse events or AE) of cancer treatments. eRAPID allows AE reporting from home and patient reported data is accessible via Electronic Patient Records (EPR) for use in routine care. The system can generate alerts to clinical teams for severe AE and provides patient advice on managing mild AEs. The overall aims of eRAPID are to improve the safe delivery of cancer treatments, enhance patient care and standardise AE documentation.

Methods: The trial is a prospective randomised two-arm parallel group design study with repeated measures and mixed methods. Participants (adult patients with breast cancer on neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, colorectal and gynaecological cancer receiving chemotherapy) are randomised to receive the eRAPID intervention or usual care over 18 weeks of treatment. Participants in the intervention arm receive training in using the eRAPID system to provide routine weekly adverse event reports from home. Hospital staff can access eRAPID reports via the EPR and use the information during consultations or phone calls with patients. Prior to commencing the full trial an internal pilot phase was conducted (N = 87 participants) to assess recruitment procedures, consent and attrition rates, the integrity of the intervention information technology and establish procedures for collecting outcome data. The overall target sample for the trial is N = 504. The primary outcome of the trial is quality of life (FACT-G) with secondary outcomes including health economics (costs to patients and the NHS), process of care (e.g. contacts with the hospital, number of admissions, clinic appointments and changes to treatment/medications) and patient self-efficacy. Outcome data is collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18 weeks and 12 months. The intervention is also being evaluated via end of study interviews with patient participants and clinical staff.

Discussion: The pilot phase was completed in February 2016 and recruitment and attrition rates met criteria for continuing to the full trial. Recruitment recommenced in May 2016 and is planned to continue until December 2017. Overall findings will determine the value of the eRAPID intervention for supporting the care of patients receiving systemic cancer treatment.

Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88520246 . Registered 11 September 2014.

Citing Articles

Patients' and Clinicians' Experiences Using a Real-Time Remote Monitoring System for Chemotherapy Symptom Management (ASyMS): Qualitative Study.

McCann L, Lewis L, Oduntan O, Harris J, Darley A, Berg G J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e53834.

PMID: 39626227 PMC: 11653047. DOI: 10.2196/53834.


Patient and clinician perspectives of an eHealth intervention for supporting cancer treatment in the UK: mixed methods evaluation of the eRAPID randomised controlled trial.

Warrington L, Holmes M, Gibson A, Peacock R, Rogers Z, Dickinson S BMJ Open. 2024; 14(11):e078283.

PMID: 39515868 PMC: 11552561. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078283.


Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures.

Salmani H, Nasiri S, Alemrajabi M, Ahmadi M Front Rehabil Sci. 2024; 5:1427712.

PMID: 39386354 PMC: 11461464. DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2024.1427712.


The advantages, disadvantages, threats, and opportunities of electronic patient-reported outcome systems in cancer: A systematic review.

Salmani H, Nasiri S, Ahmadi M Digit Health. 2024; 10:20552076241257146.

PMID: 38812853 PMC: 11135117. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241257146.


Patient-reported symptom monitoring: using (big) data to improve supportive care at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels.

Wang Y, Allsop M, Epstein J, Howell D, Rapoport B, Schofield P Support Care Cancer. 2024; 32(3):182.

PMID: 38386101 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08373-x.


References
1.
Velikova G, Keding A, Harley C, Cocks K, Booth L, Smith A . Patients report improvements in continuity of care when quality of life assessments are used routinely in oncology practice: secondary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46(13):2381-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.030. View

2.
Espallargues M, Valderas J, Alonso J . Provision of feedback on perceived health status to health care professionals: a systematic review of its impact. Med Care. 2000; 38(2):175-86. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200002000-00007. View

3.
Basch E, Deal A, Kris M, Scher H, Hudis C, Sabbatini P . Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 34(6):557-65. PMC: 4872028. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830. View

4.
Heitzmann C, Merluzzi T, Jean-Pierre P, Roscoe J, Kirsh K, Passik S . Assessing self-efficacy for coping with cancer: development and psychometric analysis of the brief version of the Cancer Behavior Inventory (CBI-B). Psychooncology. 2010; 20(3):302-12. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1735. View

5.
Lancaster G, Dodd S, Williamson P . Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004; 10(2):307-12. DOI: 10.1111/j..2002.384.doc.x. View