Analyzing patient engagement with digital health tools to facilitate equity across a large statewide community oncology practice

Background: Digital health solutions (DHS) allow for enhanced remote communication between patients and clinical staff and the COVID-19 pandemic has brought these tools to the forefront of care delivery. Once adopted, barriers to adequate utilization still exist. Given the important need to decrease digital divides, and the diversity of patients and care settings across our clinic's 220 sites of service, we sought to understand how utilization of oncology DHS may be limited among certain populations. Methods: We investigated utilization among cancer patients who enrolled and engaged with a portfolio of DHS between March 1, 2019 and January 15, 2022. This portfolio includes three tools: (1) an electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) remote monitoring program for tracking symptoms and oral adherence, (2) a patient portal (PP) for securely accessing patient health records, and (3) digital education (DE) for patients regarding disease and treatments. ePRO completion rate, average number of PP logins, and DE read rate were used as measures of utilization for each tool, respectively, and compared among patients with different age (< 65 and ≥65 years), language preference [English (EL) or Spanish (SL)], and distance from clinic (non-rural: < 20 miles OR rural: ≥20 miles). Mann-Whitney U and Chi-Square tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results: This study included a total of 77,347 unique patients representing 651,004 digital encounters. 9,938 patients engaged in ePRO, 49,771 patients in PP, and 12,044 patients in DE. Engagement across all DHS was high in patients of age group < 65 (ePRO: 72.7%, PP: 79.67% and PE 54.7%) as compared to ≥65 years, but the ePRO completion rate is high in ≥65 age group (59.0% vs 55.6%), whereas no significant difference was observed in the PP login activity and DE read rate. EL patients were significantly (p-value < 0.01) more engaged (ePRO 68% vs. 54%, PP: 80% vs. 62%, DE: 57% vs. 37%) and had higher digital utilization (ePRO completion rate: 57.31% vs 53.23%, average PP logins: 7.48 vs 7.14 and DE read rate: 96.2% vs 90.8%) than SL patients across the DHS. Patients living in rural areas comprised roughly 25% of the population and participated across tools similarly as patients living in non-rural areas (ePRO 67% vs. 69%, PP: 79% vs. 79%, DE: 56.9% vs. 56.8%). Utilization of the portfolio was variable based on rural vs non-rural status (ePRO completion rate: 56.3% vs. 57.4%, average PP logins: 7.9 vs. 7.3, DE read rate: 96.02.7% vs 96.3%). Conclusions: Despite variable engagement based on age, language, and rural status across the portfolio, patients within these populations continue to utilize the DHS. How we understand and explore enhancements to DHS remain under investigation for tool optimization for patient-specific barriers to care.

Patient and clinician perceptions of a digital patient monitoring program in the community oncology setting: Findings from the Texas Two-Step Study

Background: Digital monitoring strategies that include electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) measures to monitor symptoms among cancer patients have been shown to be effective in improving patient outcomes in a large academic setting and across several smaller multi-center trials. However, demonstration of clinical utility in the real-world setting must incorporate patient and provider perspectives of ePRO programs to ensure successful implementation. We sought to understand perceptions among patients and clinicians in ePRO digital symptom monitoring program. Methods: Texas Two-Step is an ongoing hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of Navigating Cancer's ePRO digital monitoring program at Texas Oncology. Patients initiating new systemic therapy for their cancer diagnosis were introduced to the program by their oncologist and enrolled in the program by nursing staff for weekly reporting of symptoms based on a modified version of NCI's PROCTCAE instrument. Feedback surveys were administered to both patients and clinic staff after 6 months of implementation of the program to evaluate the overall experience with the program. Results: 1040 (23.5%) patients and 215 (12.4%) clinicians completed the feedback survey. Of the patient responders, 90% found the program very or somewhat easy for reporting symptoms, 85% moderatelyextremely beneficial for having symptoms addressed, and 84% moderately-extremely interested in utilizing the program for future treatments. Of the clinician responders, 73% indicated that that they had a good understanding of the benefit of the program;70.6% felt confident in their ability to interpret patients' ePRO responses;80.3% felt confident in their ability to discuss the program with patients;71.2% confident in their ability to counsel patients based on ePRO responses;and 55.3% felt the program enhanced communication with patients. Additionally, 59% of clinicians felt the program was beneficial for patients. Conclusions: Patients have a more favorable perception of the benefit of the ePRO program than clinicians. Methods to reduce staff burden and reinforcement of program benefits during training and implementation are imperative to improve clinical utility and will be studied further as the program is optimized. As implementation occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, this may impact perceptions regarding the tool.

Implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring in a large multi-site community oncology practice

Background: Among patients receiving chemotherapy, symptomatic adverse event monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) is associated with improved clinical outcomes, satisfaction, and compliance with therapy. Standard approaches for ePRO implementation are not established warranting evaluation in community cancer practices. Objective: Evaluate implementation of ePRO symptom monitoring across a large multi-site community oncology practice network. Methods: Patients initiating a new systemic therapy at one of 210 practice sites in the Texas Oncology Practice were invited to use in the Navigating Cancer ePRO platform, with rolling implementation from July-December 2020. Participating patients received a weekly prompt by text message or email (patient choice) to selfreport common symptoms and well-being via web or smartphone. Severe self-reported symptoms triggered a real-time notification alert to nursing triage to address the symptom. Enrollment and compliance were systematically tracked weekly with evaluation of barriers and facilitators to adoption and sustainability. Results: 4375 patients planning systemic treatment enrolled and participated, with baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. 73% (1841/2522) of enrolled patients with follow up completed at least one ePRO assessment, and among these individuals, 65% (8762/25061) of all available weekly ePRO assessments were completed. Over a 10-week period, compliance with weekly symptom reporting declined from 72% to 52%. Patients on oral therapy had higher compliance rates overall. Barriers currently being addressed include lack of a second reminder text/email prompt, inconsistent discussion of reported ePROs by clinicians at visits, and COVID-related changes in workflow. Facilitators included patient and staff engagement on the importance of PROs for symptom management. Conclusions: ePROs can be effectively implemented in community oncology practice. Utilization of ePROs is high, but diminishes over time without attention to barriers. Ongoing work to address barriers and optimize compliance are underway. (Table Presented).