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
. 2024 May 14;32(6):344.
doi: 10.1007/s00520-024-08547-7.

Longitudinal assessment of real-world patient adherence: a 12-month electronic patient-reported outcomes follow-up of women with early breast cancer undergoing treatment

Pimrapat Gebert  1   2 , Anna Maria Hage  3 , Jens-Uwe Blohmer  3 , Robert Roehle  1   2 , Maria Margarete Karsten  4
Affiliations

Longitudinal assessment of real-world patient adherence: a 12-month electronic patient-reported outcomes follow-up of women with early breast cancer undergoing treatment

Pimrapat Gebert et al. Support Care Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) assess patients' health status and quality of life, improving patient care and treatment effects, yet little is known about their use and adherence in routine patient care.

Aims: We evaluated the adherence of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients to ePROs follow-up and whether specific patient characteristics are related to longitudinal non-adherence.

Methods: Since November 2016, the Breast Center at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin has implemented an ongoing prospective PRO routine program, requiring patients to complete ePROs assessments and consent to email-based follow-up in the first 12 months after therapy starts. Frequencies and summary statistics are presented. Multiple logistic regression models were performed to determine an association between patient characteristics and non-adherence.

Results: Out of 578 patients, 239 patients (41.3%, 95%CI: 37.3-45.5%) completed baseline assessment and all five ePROs follow-up during the first 12 months after therapy. On average, above 70% of those patients responded to the ePROs follow-up assessment. Adherence to the ePROs follow-up was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic than in the time periods before (47.4% (111/234) vs. 33.6% (71/211)). Factors associated with longitudinal non-adherence were younger age, a higher number of comorbidities, no chemotherapy, and a low physical functioning score in the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline.

Conclusions: The study reveals moderate adherence to 12-month ePROs follow-up assessments in invasive early breast cancer and DCIS patients, with response rates ranging from 60 to 80%. Emphasizing the benefits for young patients and those with high disease burdens might further increase adherence.

Keywords: Compliance; Early Breast cancer; Oncology; Return rate; Web-based questionnaire.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flowchart with the inclusion process. DCIS = Ductal carcinoma in situ; PROs = Patient-reported outcomes
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
12-month adherence by type of surgery (a) and chemotherapy (b). Data was presented with percentage (number of cases/total cases). 12-month adherence is defined by patients who completed baseline and all five ePRO follow-up assessments during the 12-month period following their therapy
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Factors associated with non-adherence to ePRO follow-up in routine care of breast cancer and DCIS patients. * factor is a continuous variable and the value changes by 10 units. Two or more comorbidities compared to less than two comorbidities (reference) and no chemotherapy compared to any chemotherapy
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Subgroup analysis: percentage of adherence at baseline and all five follow-up time points by type of surgery (a) and chemotherapy (b) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Singh K, Landman AB (2017) Chapter 13 - mobile health. In: Sheikh A, Cresswell KM, Wright A, et al (eds). Key advances in clinical informatics. Academic Press, pp 183-196. 10.1016/B978-0-12-809523-2.00013-3
    1. Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, et al. Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:557–565. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E. Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:337–347. doi: 10.3322/caac.21150. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jensen RE, Snyder CF, Abernethy AP, Basch E, Potosky AL, Roberts AC, et al. Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10:e215–222. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2013.001067. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mody GN, Stover AM, Wang M, King-Kallimanis BL, Jansen J, Henson S, et al. Electronic patient-reported outcomes monitoring during lung cancer chemotherapy: A nested cohort within the PRO-TECT pragmatic trial (AFT-39) Lung Cancer. 2021;162:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.09.020. - DOI - PubMed