Background: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are commonly used in oncology clinical practice and have shown benefits for patients and health resource use. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the isolated effect of administering ePROs to patients with cancer versus a control condition. Methods: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Randomized controlled trials evaluating ePRO interventions that aimed to improve health-related outcomes among patients with cancer were included. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and the secondary outcomes were symptoms, hospital admissions, unplanned visits, chemotherapy completion, survival, and satisfaction with care. The effect sizes of ePROs on health-related outcomes were analyzed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs using a random effects model. Results: The search identified 10,965 papers, of which 19 (0.17%) from 15 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed an improvement in HRQOL at 3 months, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.39), and at 6 months, assessed using various HRQOL measures (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30). Of the 15 studies, 9 (60%) reported a positive signal on HRQOL, with two-thirds of the studies (n=6, 67%) including tailored patient advice and two-thirds (n=6, 67%) using clinician alert systems. Conclusions: The meta-analysis showed an improvement in HRQOL at 6 months and in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General scores at 3 months for studies that included tailored advice and clinician alerts, suggesting that these elements may improve ePRO effectiveness. The findings will provide guidance for future use and help health care professionals choose the most suitable ePRO features for their patients. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020175007; https://tinyurl.com/5cwmy3j6

Background Information and communication technology (ICT) systems are being developed for electronic symptom reporting across different stages of the cancer trajectory with research in palliative care at an early stage. Aim/design This paper presents the first systematic search of the literature to review existing ICT systems intended to support management of pain in palliative care patients with cancer. The review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data sources Four databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Healthcare Management Information Consortium) from 1990 to December 2012 were searched, with exclusion of papers based on their description of ICT systems and language used. Results 24 articles met the inclusion criteria, many of which reported the use of non-experimental research designs. Studies were identified at different stages of development with no systems having reached implementation. Most systems captured pain as part of quality-of-life measurement with wide variation in approaches to pain assessment. Conclusions ICT systems for symptom reporting are emerging in the palliative care context. Future development of ICT systems need to increase the quality and scale of development work, consider how recommendations for pain measurement can be integrated and explore how to effectively use system feedback with patients.

Background: Poor pain assessment is a barrier to effective pain control. There is growing interest internationally in the development and implementation of remote monitoring technologies to enhance assessment in cancer and chronic disease contexts. Findings describe the development and testing of pain monitoring systems, but research identifying the needs of health professionals to implement routine monitoring systems within clinical practice is limited. Aim: To inform the development and implementation strategy of an electronic pain monitoring system, PainCheck, by understanding palliative care professionals’ needs when integrating PainCheck into routine clinical practice. Design: Qualitative study using face-to-face interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis Setting/participants: Purposive sample of health professionals managing the palliative care of patients living in the community Results: A total of 15 interviews with health professionals took place. Three meta-themes emerged from the data: (1) uncertainties about integration of PainCheck and changes to current practice, (2) appraisal of current practice and (3) pain management is everybody’s responsibility Conclusion: Even the most sceptical of health professionals could see the potential benefits of implementing an electronic patient-reported pain monitoring system. Health professionals have reservations about how PainCheck would work in practice. For optimal use, PainCheck needs embedding within existing electronic health records. Electronic pain monitoring systems have the potential to enable professionals to support patients’ pain management more effectively but only when barriers to implementation are appropriately identified and addressed.

PURPOSE: The use of health information technology (HIT) to support patient and health professional communication is emerging as a core component of modern cancer care. Approaches to HIT development for cancer care are often underreported, despite their implementation in complex, multidisciplinary environments, typically supporting patients with multifaceted needs. We describe the development and evaluation of an e-health tool for pain management in patients with advanced cancer, arising from collaboration between health researchers and a commercial software development company. METHODS: We adopted a research-led development process, involving patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals, focusing on use within real clinical settings. A software development approach (disciplined agile delivery) was combined with health science research methods (ie, diary studies, face-to-face interviews, questionnaires, prototyping, think aloud, process reviews, and pilots). Three software iterations were managed through three disciplined agile delivery phases to develop PainCheck and prepare it for use in a clinical trial. RESULTS: Findings from development phases (inception, elaboration, and construction) informed the design and implementation of PainCheck. During the transition phase, where PainCheck was evaluated in a randomized clinical trial, there was variation in the extent of engagement by patients and health professionals. Prior personal experience and confidence with HIT led to a gatekeeping effect among health professionals, who were reluctant to introduce PainCheck to patients. Patients who did use PainCheck seemed to benefit, and no usability issues were reported. CONCLUSION: Health science research methods seemed to help in the development of PainCheck, although a more rigorous application of implementation science methodologies might help to elucidate further the barriers and facilitators to adoption and inform an evidence-based plan for future implementation.