Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Feb 18;7(1):E101-E108.
doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20180074. Print 2019 Jan-Mar.

Use of patient-reported outcomes in regional cancer centres over time: a retrospective study

Lisa Barbera  1 , Faith Lee  2 , Rinku Sutradhar  2
Affiliations

Use of patient-reported outcomes in regional cancer centres over time: a retrospective study

Lisa Barbera et al. CMAJ Open. .

Abstract

Background: Since 2007, Cancer Care Ontario has been collecting data using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System as a patient-reported outcome measure for use in routine care. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the factors associated with Edmonton Symptom Assessment System uptake among cancer patients seen at regional cancer centres and to examine if these associations have changed over time.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study among cancer patients eligible to complete Edmonton Symptom Assessment System assessments who were seen at regional cancer centres in Ontario between 2007 and 2015. We used linked administrative sources of health care data. Our primary outcome for each patient was defined as the rate of ESAS assessments, which was analyzed overall and on an annual basis.

Results: We identified 525 409 unique patients with at least 1 visit to a cancer centre during the study period. The percentage of patients with at least 1 Edmonton Symptom Assessment System assessment increased from 5% in 2007 to 67% in 2015. Analysis demonstrated that variation by region and by cancer type decreased over time: relative rates for region ranged from 0.31 to 13.3 in 2007 whereas they ranged from 0.7 to 1.56 in 2015, and relative rates for cancer type ranged from 0.03 to 1.0 in 2007 whereas they ranged from 0.55 to 1.0 in 2015. In 2015 women and people living in poorer neighbourhoods had a lower Edmonton Symptom Assessment System uptake (relative rate 0.93 and 0.91, respectively).

Interpretation: Ontario has implemented a patient-reported outcome program across the province; over time, uptake has improved and variation by cancer type and region has decreased. Variation persists for other patient characteristics, which suggests that there are opportunities to improve equity in the program.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Lisa Barbera is the former provincial lead for patient-reported outcomes at Cancer Care Ontario.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Negative binomical generalized estimating equations (GEE) output. Note: ADG = Aggregated Diagnosis Group, CI = confidence interval, RUB = resource utilization band. The local health integration networks (LHINs) are as follows: LHIN 1 = Erie St. Clair, LHIN 2 = South West, LHIN 3 = Waterloo Wellington, LHIN 4 = Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant, LHIN 5 = Central West, LHIN 6 = Mississauga Halton, LHIN 7 = Toronto Central, LHIN 8 = Central, LHIN 9 = Central East, LHIN 10 = South East, LHIN 11 = Champlain, LHIN 12 = North Simcoe Muskoka, LHIN 13 = North East, LHIN 14 = North West.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Relative rates of Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) uptake from multivariable regression model for cancer type and comorbidity. Note: ADG = Aggregated Diagnosis Group, CI = confidence interval, RUB = resource utilization band.
Figure 3:
Figure 3:
Relative rates of Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) uptake from multivariable regression model for age, sex, income quintile, immigration status and region (local health integration network; LHIN). Note: CI = confidence interval, Immi = Immigration, IQ = income quintile. The LHINs are as follows: LHIN 1 = Erie St. Clair, LHIN 2 = South West, LHIN 3 = Waterloo Wellington, LHIN 4 = Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant, LHIN 5 = Central West, LHIN 6 = Mississauga Halton, LHIN 7 = Toronto Central, LHIN 8 = Central, LHIN 9 = Central East, LHIN 10 = South East, LHIN 11 = Champlain, LHIN 12 = North Simcoe Muskoka, LHIN 13 = North East, LHIN 14 = North West.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcomes measures — use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 235. Vol. 74. Silver Spring (MD): US Food and Drug Administration; 2009. pp. 65132–3.
    1. Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, et al. PRO Harmonization Group. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003;6:522–31. - PubMed
    1. Au HJ, Ringash J, Brundage M, et al. NCIC CTG Quality of Life Committee. Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: the experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10:119–28. - PubMed
    1. Snyder CF, Aaronson NK. Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Lancet. 2009;374:369–70. - PubMed
    1. Greenhalgh J, Meadows K. The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review. J Eval Clin Pract. 1999;5:401–16. - PubMed