Purpose: Patient- and clinician-reported outcome measures (PROMs, CROMs) are used in rehabilitation to evaluate and track the patient’s health status and recovery. However, controversy still exists regarding their relevance and validity when assessing a change in health status. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the changes in a CROM (Fingertip-To-Floor Test – FTF) and PROMs (ODI, HAQ-DI, NPRS, EQ5D) and the associations between these outcomes in 395 patients with lower back pain (57.2 ± 11.8 years, 49.1% female). We introduced a new way to measure and classify outcome performance using a distribution-based approach (t2D). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and after 21 days of inpatient rehabilitation. Results: Overall, the rehabilitation (Cohens d = 0.94) resulted in a large effect size outcome. Medium effect sizes were observed for FTF (d = 0.70) and PROMs (d > 0.50). Best performance rating was observed for pain (NPRS). We found that 13.9% of patients exhibited a deterioration in the PROMs, but only 2.3%, in the FTF. The correlation between the PROMs and FTF were low to moderate, with the highest identified for HAQ-DI (rho = 0.30–0.36); no significant correlations could be shown for changes. High consistency levels were observed among the performance scores (t2D) in 68.9% of the patients. Conclusions: Different and complementary assessment modalities of PROMs and CROMs can be used as valuable tools in the clinical setting. Results from both types of measurements and individual performance assessments in patients provide a valid basis for the meaningful interpretation of the patients’ health outcomes. Trial registration. This clinical study was entered retrospectively on August 14, 2020 into the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, registration number: DRKS00022854).

Background: Patient-reported outcomes are considered the gold standard for assessing subjective health status in oncology patients. Electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) has become increasingly popular in recent years in both clinical trials and practice. However, there is limited evidence on how well older patients with cancer can complete ePRO assessments. Objective: We aimed to investigate how well adult patients with cancer of different age ranges could complete ePRO assessments at home and in a treatment facility and to identify factors associated with the ability to complete questionnaires electronically. Methods: This retrospective longitudinal single-center study involved survivors of cancer who participated in inpatient rehabilitation. Patients completed ePRO assessments before rehabilitation at home (T1) and after rehabilitation at the facility (T2). We analyzed the rate of patients who could complete the ePRO assessment at T1 and T2, the proportion of patients who required assistance, and the time it took patients to complete standardized questionnaires. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of ePRO completion rate and the need for assistance. Results: Between 2017 and 2022, a total of 5571 patients were included in this study. Patients had a mean age of 60.3 (SD 12.2) years (range 18 to 93 years), and 1135 (20.3%) of them were classified as geriatric patients (>70 years). While more than 90% (5060/5571) of all patients completed the ePRO assessment, fewer patients in the age group of >70 years (924/1135, 81.4% at T1 vs 963/1135, 84.8% at T2) completed the assessment. Approximately 19% (1056/5571) of patients reported a need for assistance with the ePRO assessment at home, compared to 6.8% (304/4483) at the institution. Patients older than 70 years had a significantly higher need for assistance than those in younger age groups. Moreover, a gender difference was observed, with older women reporting a higher need for assistance than men (71-80 years: women requiring assistance 215/482, 44.6% vs men 96/350, 27.4%; P<.001 and >80 years: women 102/141, 72.3% vs men 57/112, 50.9%; P<.001). On average, patients needed 4.9 (SD 3.20) minutes to remotely complete a 30-item questionnaire (European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire) and patients in the older age groups took significantly longer compared to younger age groups. Lower age and higher physical functioning were the clearest predictors for both the ePRO completion rate and the need for assistance in the multivariate regression analysis. Conclusions: This study’s results indicate that ePRO assessment is feasible in older individuals with cancer, but older patients may require assistance (eg, from relatives) to complete home-based assessments. It may be more feasible to conduct assessments in-house in this population. Additionally, it is crucial to carefully consider which resources are necessary and available to support patients in using ePRO devices.

Rehabilitation is a key element in improving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for pediatric cancer survivors. The aim of this study was to present data from a multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation treatment. Children took part in a four-week multidisciplinary family-oriented inpatient rehabilitation. A total of 236 children (>5–21 years) and 478 parents routinely completed electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), performance-based assessments, and clinician-rated assessments before (T1) and at the end (T2) of rehabilitation. HRQOL was assessed with the PedsQL generic core and PedsQL cancer module. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistically significant improvements with medium to large effect sizes were observed for most HRQOL scales (η² = 0.09–0.31), as well as performance-based and clinician-rated assessments for physical activity and functional status (η² > 0.28). Agreement between children’s PROs and parents’ proxy ratings was lower before (r_ICC = 0.72) than after (r_ICC = 0.86) rehabilitation. While the concordance between children and parents’ assessment of changes during rehab was low to moderate (r = 0.19–0.59), the use of the performance score led to substantially increased scores (r = 0.29–0.68). The results of this naturalistic observational study thus highlight the benefits of multidisciplinary pediatric inpatient rehabilitation for childhood cancer survivors. The use of the performance score is recommended in this field.

The aim of cancer rehabilitation is to help patients regain functioning and social participation. In order to evaluate and optimize rehabilitation, it is important to measure its outcomes in a structured way. In this article, we review the different types of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), including Clinician-Reported Outcomes (ClinROs), Observer-Reported Outcomes (ObsROs), Performance Outcomes (PerfOs), and Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). A special focus is placed on PROs, which are commonly defined as any direct report from the patient about their health condition without any interpretation by a third party. We provide a narrative review of available PRO measures (PROMs) for relevant outcomes, discuss the current state of PRO implementation in cancer rehabilitation, and highlight trends that use PROs to benchmark value-based care. Furthermore, we provide examples of PRO usage, highlight the benefits of electronic PRO (ePRO) collection, and offer advice on how to select, implement, and integrate PROs into the cancer rehabilitation setting to maximize efficiency.

Knowledge about critical success factors underpinning beneficial treatment outcomes in psychosomatic inpatient rehabilitation is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of patients’ epistemic stance in relation to the improvement of psychological distress during rehabilitation. In this naturalistic longitudinal observational study, n = 771 patients completed routine assessments for psychological distress (BSI-18), health-related quality of life (HRQOL; WHODAS), and epistemic trust (ETMCQ) before (T1) and after (T2) psychosomatic rehabilitation. Patients were grouped as best, average, and worst responders based on their mean BSI-18 changes during treatment, and their mean change in epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity was compared using repeated measures analyses of variance (rANOVAs). No associations of performance with sex (p = 0.09), age (p = 0.11), or relationship status (p = 0.58) were found. Best responders reported significantly improved epistemic trust (p = 0.001) and reduced epistemic mistrust (p < 0.001), whereas worst responders reported a significant increase in epistemic mistrust (p < 0.001) and credulity (p < 0.001). Average responders did not change for either epistemic trust (p = 0.11), mistrust (p > 0.99), or credulity (p = 0.96). Our results underscore the role of the epistemic stance in psychosomatic and psychotherapeutic treatments. These results help to better understand what might determine psychosomatic rehabilitation outcomes and indicate the role of epistemic trust as a critical success factor.