The use of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes in follow-up after palliative radiotherapy: A survey study in Belgium

Eva Oldenburger; Sofie Isebaert; Annemarie Coolbrandt; Chantal Van Audenhove; Karin Haustermans

doi:10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100243

The use of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes in follow-up after palliative radiotherapy: A survey study in Belgium

PEC Innov. 2023 Dec 5:3:100243. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100243. eCollection 2023 Dec 15.

Authors

Eva Oldenburger^{1

2}, Sofie Isebaert¹, Annemarie Coolbrandt³, Chantal Van Audenhove⁴, Karin Haustermans¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
² Department of Palliative Care, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium.
³ Department of General Medical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
⁴ LUCAS KU Leuven Centre for Care Research & Consultancy, Leuven, Belgium.

Abstract

Objective: Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) could be used to monitor patients' symptoms after treatment. However, ePROM implementation in clinical practice has been challenging, especially in (palliative) radiation oncology. The aim of this study was to explore the opinions of healthcare providers (HCP) active in radiation oncology in Belgium on the use of ePROMs for symptom follow-up after palliative radiotherapy.

Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted with different HCP in radiation oncology in Belgium. Participants were recruited through several professional organizations with approximately 390 members actively working in the field of radiation oncology. The survey used was a self-developed questionnaire, based on existing literature on implementation of (e)PROMs in cancer care, our previous research on this topic as well as our personal experience in the field of oncology and palliative care.

Results: Of the 128 respondents, 26% had experience with ePROMs in clinical practice. Eighty-four percent considered ePROMs beneficial for patients' health and symptom knowledge, symptom self-management and active participation in care. ePROMs could help HCP to focus on detection of relevant symptoms and improve their management. Almost 75% were willing to implement and use ePROMs. Assigning ePROM introduction and follow-up to a dedicated person, such as a nurse navigator, was suggested to promote ePROM implementation and use in clinical practice.

Conclusion: Despite limited experience with ePROMs in clinical care for palliative radiotherapy patients, the majority of respondents is willing to implement and use ePROMs for this particular patient population.

Innovation: This is one of the first studies specifically focusing on experiences and opinions of HCP in radiation oncology on the use of ePROMs for symptom follow-up in palliative radiotherapy. HCP should be actively involved in implementation of ePROMs after palliative radiotherapy, to translate their vision of their ideals in practice.

Keywords: Electronic patient reported outcome measures; Palliative radiotherapy; Patient-centered care; ePROMs.