Symptom Management Implementation of Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology

Emergency Department Treat/Release [EDTR] Event Occurrence Status at Day 90

This outcome will be defined in relation to the date of discharge from hospital (surgical cohort) or the initiation date of a new intravenous chemo regimen (medical oncology cohort). This is a binary outcome and we will analyze the absolute difference and odds ratio for the medical oncology and surgical cohorts combined and independently.

Time frame: 90 days

Admissions Event Occurrence Status at Day 30

This outcome will be defined in relation to the date of discharge from hospital (surgical cohort) or the initiation date of a new intravenous chemo regimen (medical oncology cohort). This is a binary outcome and we will analyze the absolute difference and odds ratio for the medical oncology and surgical cohorts combined and independently.

Time frame: 30 Days

Admissions Event Occurrence Status at Day 90

This outcome will be defined in relation to the date of discharge from hospital (surgical cohort) or the initiation date of a new intravenous chemo regimen (medical oncology cohort). This is a binary outcome and we will analyze the absolute difference and odds ratio for the medical oncology and surgical cohorts combined and independently.

Time frame: 90 Days

Difference in Fatigue PROMIS Scores Reported by Participants Before and After eSyM Exposure

Difference in PROMIS fatigue scores between the pre-live and post-live eSyM cohorts. Since the two cohorts were comprised of different patients, comparisons were performed at the population level using mean T-scores. Fatigue was assessed using the PROMIS Fatigue 4-item short form with responses converted to T-scores (score range: 50 indicates the population mean with a standard deviation of 10; decrease in score indicates a positive change). All PROMIS items were scored using the standardized scoring tool kit. The differences in mean T-scores and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each PROMIS item, comparing the post-live versus pre-live cohort. When comparing group-level change in PROMIS scores, even trivial differences can be statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. The threshold to evaluate within-group change or to make a between-group comparison generally ranges between 2 and 6 T-score points (Terwee et al., 2021).

Time frame: 30-90 days before and after eSyM go-live

Difference in Depression PROMIS Scores Reported by Participants Before and After eSyM Exposure

Difference in PROMIS depression scores between the pre-live and post-live eSyM cohorts. Since the two cohorts were comprised of different patients, comparisons were performed at the population level using mean T-scores. Depression was assessed using the PROMIS Emotional Distress-Depression 4-item short form with responses converted to T-scores (score range: 50 indicates the population mean with a standard deviation of 10; decrease in score indicates a positive change). All PROMIS items were scored using the standardized scoring tool kit. The differences in mean T-scores and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each PROMIS item, comparing the post-live versus pre-live cohort. When comparing group-level change in PROMIS scores, even trivial differences can be statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. The threshold to evaluate within-group change or to make a between-group comparison generally ranges between 2 and 6 T-score points.

Time frame: 30-90 days before and after eSyM go-live

Difference in Anxiety PROMIS Scores Reported by Participants Before and After eSyM Exposure

Difference in PROMIS anxiety scores between the pre-live and post-live eSyM cohorts. Since the two cohorts were comprised of different patients, comparisons were performed at the population level using mean T-scores. Anxiety was assessed using the PROMIS Emotional Distress-Anxiety 4-item short form with responses converted to T-scores (score range: 50 indicates the population mean with a standard deviation of 10; decrease in score indicates a positive change). All PROMIS items were scored using the standardized scoring tool kit. The differences in mean T-scores and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each PROMIS item, comparing the post-live versus pre-live cohort. When comparing group-level change in PROMIS scores, even trivial differences can be statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. The threshold to evaluate within-group change or to make a between-group comparison generally ranges between 2 and 6 T-score points.

Time frame: 30-90 days before and after eSyM go-live

Difference in Pain Interference PROMIS Scores Reported by Participants Before and After eSyM Exposure

Difference in PROMIS pain interference scores between the pre-live and post-live eSyM cohorts. Since the two cohorts were comprised of different patients, comparisons were performed at the population level using mean T-scores. Pain interference was assessed using the PROMIS Pain Interference 4-item short form with responses converted to T-scores (score range: 50 indicates the population mean with a standard deviation of 10; decrease in score indicates a positive change). All PROMIS items were scored using the standardized scoring tool kit. The differences in mean T-scores and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each PROMIS item, comparing the post-live versus pre-live cohort. When comparing group-level change in PROMIS scores, even trivial differences can be statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. The threshold to evaluate within-group change or to make a between-group comparison generally ranges between 2 and 6 T-score points.

Time frame: 30-90 days before and after eSyM go-live

Difference in Self-Efficacy PROMIS Scores Reported by Participants Before and After eSyM Exposure

Difference in PROMIS self-efficacy scores between pre-live and post-live eSyM cohorts. Since the two cohorts were comprised of different patients, comparisons were performed at the population level using mean T-scores. Self-efficacy was assessed using the PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Symptoms 8-item short form with responses converted to T-scores (score range: 50 indicates the population mean with a standard deviation of 10; decrease in score indicates a positive change). All PROMIS items were scored using the standardized scoring tool kit. The differences in mean T-scores and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each PROMIS item, comparing the post-live versus pre-live cohort. When comparing group-level change in PROMIS scores, even trivial differences can be statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. The threshold to evaluate within-group change or to make a between-group comparison generally ranges between 2 and 6 T-score points.

Time frame: 30-90 days before and after eSyM go-live

Difference in Physical Function PROMIS Scores Reported by Participants Before and After eSyM Exposure

Difference in PROMIS physical function scores between the pre-live and post-live eSyM cohorts. Since the two cohorts were comprised of different patients, comparisons were performed at the population level using mean T-scores. Physical function was assessed using the PROMIS Physical Function 4-item short form with responses converted to T-scores (score range: 50 indicates the population mean with a standard deviation of 10; decrease in score indicates a positive change). All PROMIS items were scored using the standardized scoring tool kit. The differences in mean T-scores and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each PROMIS item, comparing the post-live versus pre-live cohort. When comparing group-level change in PROMIS scores, even trivial differences can be statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. The threshold to evaluate within-group change or to make a between-group comparison generally ranges between 2 and 6 T-score points).

Time frame: 30-90 days before and after eSyM go-live

Emergency Department Treat/Release [EDTR] Event Occurrence Status at Day 30 (Comparing eSyM Intervention Responders Versus Non-Responders)

The secondary study outcome of the stepped wedge cluster RCT (randomized controlled trial) is the difference in the EDTR rate between eSyM responders and non-responders. This outcome will be defined in relation to the date of discharge from hospital (surgical cohort) or the initiation date of a new intravenous chemo regimen (medical oncology cohort). This is a binary outcome and we will analyze the absolute difference and odds ratio for the medical oncology and surgical cohorts combined and independently. NOTE: The total number of intervention participants in this analysis is greater than the number of intervention participants included in the primary analyses (outcomes 1-4). For outcomes outcomes 1-4, we used the patient's first event during the entire study period. To conduct this analysis of eSyM responders, we used the patient's first event during the intervention period. Approximately 10% of patients in this analysis were counted as a control event in the prior analyses.

Time frame: 30 days

Emergency Department Treat/Release [EDTR] Event Occurrence Status at Day 90 (Comparing eSyM Intervention Responders Versus Non-Responders)

This outcome will be defined in relation to the date of discharge from hospital (surgical cohort) or the initiation date of a new intravenous chemo regimen (medical oncology cohort). This is a binary outcome and we will analyze the absolute difference and odds ratio for the medical oncology and surgical cohorts combined and independently. NOTE: The total number of intervention participants in this analysis is greater than the number of intervention participants included in the primary analyses (outcomes 1-4). For outcomes outcomes 1-4, we used the patient's first event during the entire study period. To conduct this analysis of eSyM responders, we used the patient's first event during the intervention period. Approximately 10% of patients in this analysis were counted as a control event in the prior analyses.

Time frame: 90 days

Admissions Event Occurrence Status at Day 30 (Comparing eSyM Intervention Responders Versus Non-Responders)

This outcome will be defined in relation to the date of discharge from hospital (surgical cohort) or the initiation date of a new intravenous chemo regimen (medical oncology cohort). This is a binary outcome and we will analyze the absolute difference and odds ratio for the medical oncology and surgical cohorts combined and independently. NOTE: The total number of intervention participants in this analysis is greater than the number of intervention participants included in the primary analyses (outcomes 1-4). For outcomes outcomes 1-4, we used the patient's first event during the entire study period. To conduct this analysis of eSyM responders, we used the patient's first event during the intervention period. Approximately 10% of patients in this analysis were counted as a control event in the prior analyses.

Time frame: 30 Days

Admissions Event Occurrence Status at Day 90 (Comparing eSyM Intervention Responders Versus Non-Responders)

This outcome will be defined in relation to the date of discharge from hospital (surgical cohort) or the initiation date of a new intravenous chemo regimen (medical oncology cohort). This is a binary outcome and we will analyze the absolute difference and odds ratio for the medical oncology and surgical cohorts combined and independently. NOTE: The total number of intervention participants in this analysis is greater than the number of intervention participants included in the primary analyses (outcomes 1-4). For outcomes outcomes 1-4, we used the patient's first event during the entire study period. To conduct this analysis of eSyM responders, we used the patient's first event during the intervention period. Approximately 10% of patients in this analysis were counted as a control event in the prior analyses.

Time frame: 90 Days