\n

\n \n 2022\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n TrueNTH Sexual Recovery Intervention for couples coping with prostate cancer: Randomized controlled trial results.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wittmann, D.; Mehta, A.; Bober, S. L.; Zhu, Z.; Daignault-Newton, S.; Dunn, R. L.; Braun, T. M.; Carter, C.; Duby, A.; Northouse, L. L.; Koontz, B. F.; Glodé, L. M.; Brandon, J.; Bangs, R.; McPhail, J.; McPhail, S.; Arab, L.; Paich, K.; Skolarus, T. A.; An, L. C.; Nelson, C. J.; Saigal, C. S.; Chen, R. C.; Mulhall, J. P.; Hawley, S. T.; Hearn, J. W. D.; Spratt, D. E.; and Pollack, C. E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Cancer. January 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{wittmann_truenth_2022,\n\ttitle = {{TrueNTH} {Sexual} {Recovery} {Intervention} for couples coping with prostate cancer: {Randomized} controlled trial results},\n\tissn = {1097-0142},\n\tshorttitle = {{TrueNTH} {Sexual} {Recovery} {Intervention} for couples coping with prostate cancer},\n\tdoi = {10.1002/cncr.34076},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: Despite significant sexual dysfunction and distress after localized prostate cancer treatment, patients typically receive only physiologic erectile dysfunction management. The authors performed a randomized controlled trial of an online intervention supporting couples' posttreatment recovery of sexual intimacy.\nMETHODS: Patients treated with surgery, radiation, or combined radiation and androgen deprivation therapy who had partners were recruited and randomized to an online intervention or a control group. The intervention, tailored to treatment type and sexual orientation, comprised 6 modules addressing expectations for sexual and emotional sequelae of treatment, rehabilitation, and guidance toward sexual intimacy recovery. Couples, recruited from 6 sites nationally, completed validated measures at the baseline and 3 and 6 months after treatment. Primary outcome group differences were assessed with t tests for individual outcomes.\nRESULTS: Among 142 randomized couples, 105 patients (mostly surgery) and 87 partners completed the 6-month survey; this reflected challenges with recruitment and attrition. There were no differences between the intervention and control arms in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Satisfaction With Sex Life scores 6 months after treatment (the primary outcome). Three months after treatment, intervention patients and partners reported more engagement in penetrative and nonpenetrative sexual activities than controls. More than 73\\% of the intervention participants reported high or moderate satisfaction with module content; more than 85\\% would recommend the intervention to other couples.\nCONCLUSIONS: Online psychosexual support for couples can help couples to connect and experience sexual pleasure early after treatment despite patients' sexual dysfunction. Participants' high endorsement of the intervention reflects the importance of sexual health support to couples after prostate cancer treatment.\nLAY SUMMARY: This study tested a web-based program supporting couples' sexual recovery of sexual intimacy after prostate cancer treatment. One hundred forty-two couples were recruited and randomly assigned to the program (n = 60) or to a control group (n = 82). The program did not result in improvements in participants' satisfaction with their sex life 6 months after treatment, but couples in the intervention group engaged in sexual activity sooner after treatment than couples in the control group. Couples evaluated the program positively and would recommend it to others facing prostate cancer treatment.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tjournal = {Cancer},\n\tauthor = {Wittmann, Daniela and Mehta, Akanksha and Bober, Sharon L. and Zhu, Ziwei and Daignault-Newton, Stephanie and Dunn, Rodney L. and Braun, Thomas M. and Carter, Caroline and Duby, Ashley and Northouse, Laurel L. and Koontz, Bridget F. and Glodé, L. Michael and Brandon, Jan and Bangs, Rick and McPhail, John and McPhail, Susan and Arab, Lenore and Paich, Kellie and Skolarus, Ted A. and An, Lawrence C. and Nelson, Christian J. and Saigal, Christopher S. and Chen, Ronald C. and Mulhall, John P. and Hawley, Sarah T. and Hearn, Jason W. D. and Spratt, Daniel E. and Pollack, Craig E.},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2022},\n\tpmid = {34985771},\n\tkeywords = {couples, prostate cancer, rehabilitation, sexual dysfunction, telemedicine},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n BACKGROUND: Despite significant sexual dysfunction and distress after localized prostate cancer treatment, patients typically receive only physiologic erectile dysfunction management. The authors performed a randomized controlled trial of an online intervention supporting couples' posttreatment recovery of sexual intimacy. METHODS: Patients treated with surgery, radiation, or combined radiation and androgen deprivation therapy who had partners were recruited and randomized to an online intervention or a control group. The intervention, tailored to treatment type and sexual orientation, comprised 6 modules addressing expectations for sexual and emotional sequelae of treatment, rehabilitation, and guidance toward sexual intimacy recovery. Couples, recruited from 6 sites nationally, completed validated measures at the baseline and 3 and 6 months after treatment. Primary outcome group differences were assessed with t tests for individual outcomes. RESULTS: Among 142 randomized couples, 105 patients (mostly surgery) and 87 partners completed the 6-month survey; this reflected challenges with recruitment and attrition. There were no differences between the intervention and control arms in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Satisfaction With Sex Life scores 6 months after treatment (the primary outcome). Three months after treatment, intervention patients and partners reported more engagement in penetrative and nonpenetrative sexual activities than controls. More than 73% of the intervention participants reported high or moderate satisfaction with module content; more than 85% would recommend the intervention to other couples. CONCLUSIONS: Online psychosexual support for couples can help couples to connect and experience sexual pleasure early after treatment despite patients' sexual dysfunction. Participants' high endorsement of the intervention reflects the importance of sexual health support to couples after prostate cancer treatment. LAY SUMMARY: This study tested a web-based program supporting couples' sexual recovery of sexual intimacy after prostate cancer treatment. One hundred forty-two couples were recruited and randomly assigned to the program (n = 60) or to a control group (n = 82). The program did not result in improvements in participants' satisfaction with their sex life 6 months after treatment, but couples in the intervention group engaged in sexual activity sooner after treatment than couples in the control group. Couples evaluated the program positively and would recommend it to others facing prostate cancer treatment.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Utility and Impact of the Implementation of Same-Day, Self-administered Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessments in Routine HIV Care in two North American Clinics.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Short, D.; Fredericksen, R. J.; Crane, H. M.; Fitzsimmons, E.; Suri, S.; Bacon, J.; Musten, A.; Gough, K.; Ramgopal, M.; Berry, J.; McReynolds, J.; Kroch, A.; Jacobs, B.; Hodge, V.; Korlipara, D.; and Lober, W.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n AIDS and behavior. January 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{short_utility_2022,\n\ttitle = {Utility and {Impact} of the {Implementation} of {Same}-{Day}, {Self}-administered {Electronic} {Patient}-{Reported} {Outcomes} {Assessments} in {Routine} {HIV} {Care} in two {North} {American} {Clinics}},\n\tissn = {1573-3254},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10461-022-03585-w},\n\tabstract = {The PROgress study assessed the value and feasibility of implementing web-based patient-reported outcomes assessments (PROs) within routine HIV care at two North American outpatient clinics. People with HIV (PWH) completed PROs on a tablet computer in clinic before their routine care visit. Data collection included PROs from 1632 unique PWH, 596 chart reviews, 200 patient questionnaires, and 16 provider/staff questionnaires. During an initial setup phase involving 200 patients, PRO results were not delivered to providers; for all subsequent patients, providers received PRO results before the consultation. Chart review demonstrated that delivery of PRO results to providers improved patient-provider communication and increased the number of complex health and behavioral issues identified, recorded, and acted on, including suicidal ideation (88\\% with vs 38\\% without PRO feedback) and anxiety (54\\% with vs 24\\% without PRO feedback). In post-visit questionnaires, PWH (82\\%) and providers (82\\%) indicated that the PRO added value to the visit.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tjournal = {AIDS and behavior},\n\tauthor = {Short, Duncan and Fredericksen, Rob J. and Crane, Heidi M. and Fitzsimmons, Emma and Suri, Shivali and Bacon, Jean and Musten, Alexandra and Gough, Kevin and Ramgopal, Moti and Berry, Jeff and McReynolds, Justin and Kroch, Abigail and Jacobs, Brenda and Hodge, Vince and Korlipara, Divya and Lober, William},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2022},\n\tpmid = {35064851},\n\tpmcid = {PMC8783196},\n\tkeywords = {HIV care, Implementation science, Patient-reported outcomes, Quality of life, Suicidal ideation},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2021\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Tackling Diversity in Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials: A Report From the Diversity Working Group of the IRONMAN Registry.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n McKay, R. R.; Gold, T.; Zarif, J. C.; Chowdhury-Paulino, I. M.; Friedant, A.; Gerke, T.; Grant, M.; Hawthorne, K.; Heath, E.; Huang, F. W.; Jackson, M. D.; Mahal, B.; Ogbeide, O.; Paich, K.; Ragin, C.; Rencsok, E. M.; Simmons, S.; Yates, C.; Vinson, J.; Kantoff, P. W.; George, D. J.; and Mucci, L. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n JCO Global Oncology, 7: GO.20.00571. April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Tackling$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{mckay_tackling_2021,\n\ttitle = {Tackling {Diversity} in {Prostate} {Cancer} {Clinical} {Trials}: {A} {Report} {From} the {Diversity} {Working} {Group} of the {IRONMAN} {Registry}},\n\tvolume = {7},\n\tissn = {2687-8941},\n\tshorttitle = {Tackling {Diversity} in {Prostate} {Cancer} {Clinical} {Trials}},\n\turl = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162521/},\n\tdoi = {10.1200/GO.20.00571},\n\tabstract = {Prostate cancer disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minority populations. Reasons for disparate outcomes among minority patients are multifaceted and complex, involving factors at the patient, provider, and system levels. Although advancements in our understanding of disease biology have led to novel therapeutics for men with advanced prostate cancer, including the introduction of biomarker-driven therapeutics, pivotal translational studies and clinical trials are underrepresented by minority populations. Despite attempts to bridge the disparities gap, there remains an unmet need to expand minority engagement and participation in clinical trials to better define the impact of therapy on efficacy outcomes, quality of life, and role of biomarkers in diverse patient populations. The IRONMAN registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03151629), a global, prospective, population-based study, was borne from this unmet medical need to address persistent gaps in our knowledge of advanced prostate cancer. Through integrated collection of clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, epidemiologic data, and biospecimens, IRONMAN has the goal of expanding our understanding of how and why prostate cancer outcomes differ by race and ethnicity. To this end, the Diversity Working Group of the IRONMAN registry has developed informed strategies for site selection, recruitment, engagement and retention, and trial design and eligibility criteria to ensure broad inclusion and needs awareness of minority participants. In concert with systematic strategies to tackle the complex levels of disparate care, our ultimate goal is to expand minority engagement in clinical research and bridge the disparities gap in prostate cancer care.},\n\turldate = {2022-02-02},\n\tjournal = {JCO Global Oncology},\n\tauthor = {McKay, Rana R. and Gold, Theresa and Zarif, Jelani C. and Chowdhury-Paulino, Ilkania M. and Friedant, Adam and Gerke, Travis and Grant, Marie and Hawthorne, Kelly and Heath, Elisabeth and Huang, Franklin W. and Jackson, Maria D. and Mahal, Brandon and Ogbeide, Osarenren and Paich, Kellie and Ragin, Camille and Rencsok, Emily M. and Simmons, Stacey and Yates, Clayton and Vinson, Jake and Kantoff, Philip W. and George, Daniel J. and Mucci, Lorelei A.},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpmid = {33835826},\n\tpmcid = {PMC8162521},\n\tpages = {GO.20.00571},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Patient acceptability and usability of a self-administered electronic patient-reported outcome assessment in HIV care: relationship with health behaviors and outcomes.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Fredericksen, R. J.; Harding, B. N.; Ruderman, S. A.; McReynolds, J.; Barnes, G.; Lober, W. B.; Fitzsimmons, E.; Nance, R. M.; Whitney, B. M.; Delaney, J. a. C.; Mathews, W. C.; Willig, J.; Crane, P. K.; and Crane, H. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n AIDS care, 33(9): 1167–1177. September 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{fredericksen_patient_2021,\n\ttitle = {Patient acceptability and usability of a self-administered electronic patient-reported outcome assessment in {HIV} care: relationship with health behaviors and outcomes},\n\tvolume = {33},\n\tissn = {1360-0451},\n\tshorttitle = {Patient acceptability and usability of a self-administered electronic patient-reported outcome assessment in {HIV} care},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/09540121.2020.1845288},\n\tabstract = {We assessed acceptability/usability of tablet-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments among patients in HIV care, and relationships with health outcomes using a modified Acceptability E-Scale (AES) within a self-administered PRO assessment. Using multivariable linear regression, we measured associations between patient characteristics and continuous combined AES score. Among 786 patients (median age=48; 91\\% male; 49\\% white; 17\\% Spanish-speaking) overall mean score was 26/30 points (SD: 4.4). Mean scores per dimension (max 5, 1=lowest acceptability, 5=highest): ease of use 4.7, understandability 4.7, time burden 4.3, overall satisfaction 4.3, helpfulness describing symptoms/behaviors 4.2, and enjoyability 3.8. Higher overall score was associated with race/ethnicity (+1.3 points/African-American patients (95\\%CI:0.3-2.3); +1.6 points/Latino patients (95\\%CI:0.9-2.3) compared to white patients). Patients completing PROs in Spanish scored +2.4 points on average (95\\%CI:1.6-3.3). Higher acceptability was associated with better quality of life (0.3 points (95\\%CI:0.2-0.5)) and adherence (0.4 points (95\\%CI:0.2-0.6)). Lower acceptability was associated with: higher depression symptoms (-0.9 points (95\\%CI:-1.4 to -0.4)); recent illicit opioid use (-2.0 points (95\\%CI:-3.9 to -0.2)); multiple recent sex partners (-0.8 points (95\\%CI:-1.5 to -0.1)). While patients endorsing depression symptoms, recent opioid use, condomless sex, or multiple sex partners found PROs less acceptable, overall, patients found the assessments highly acceptable and easy to use.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {9},\n\tjournal = {AIDS care},\n\tauthor = {Fredericksen, R. J. and Harding, B. N. and Ruderman, S. A. and McReynolds, J. and Barnes, G. and Lober, W. B. and Fitzsimmons, E. and Nance, R. M. and Whitney, B. M. and Delaney, J. a. C. and Mathews, W. C. and Willig, J. and Crane, P. K. and Crane, H. M.},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpmid = {33190523},\n\tpmcid = {PMC8121890},\n\tkeywords = {Electronics, Female, HIV Infections, HIV care, Health Behavior, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Patient reported outcomes, Quality of Life, acceptability, electronic PRO administration},\n\tpages = {1167--1177},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2020\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Web-Based Lifestyle Interventions for Prostate Cancer Survivors: Qualitative Study.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wang, E. Y.; Graff, R. E.; Chan, J. M.; Langlais, C. S.; Broering, J. M.; Ramsdill, J. W.; Kessler, E. R.; Winters-Stone, K. M.; Van Blarigan, E. L.; and Kenfield, S. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n JMIR cancer, 6(2): e19362. November 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{wang_web-based_2020,\n\ttitle = {Web-{Based} {Lifestyle} {Interventions} for {Prostate} {Cancer} {Survivors}: {Qualitative} {Study}},\n\tvolume = {6},\n\tissn = {2369-1999},\n\tshorttitle = {Web-{Based} {Lifestyle} {Interventions} for {Prostate} {Cancer} {Survivors}},\n\tdoi = {10.2196/19362},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: Exercise and a healthy diet can improve the quality of life and prognosis of prostate cancer survivors, but there have been limited studies on the feasibility of web-based lifestyle interventions in this population.\nOBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a data-driven grounded theory of web-based engagement by prostate cancer survivors based on their experience in the Community of Wellness, a 12-week randomized clinical trial designed to support healthy diet and exercise habits.\nMETHODS: TrueNTH's Community of Wellness was a four-arm pilot study of men with prostate cancer (N=202) who received progressive levels of behavioral support (level 1: website; level 2: website with individualized diet and exercise recommendations; level 3: website with individualized diet and exercise recommendations, Fitbit, and text messages; and level 4: website with individualized diet and exercise recommendations, Fitbit and text messages, and separate phone calls with an exercise trainer and a registered dietitian). The primary aim of the study is to determine the feasibility and estimate the effects on behaviors (results reported in a separate paper). Following the 12-week intervention, we invited participants to participate in 4 focus groups, one for each intervention level. In this report, we used grounded theory analyses including open, axial, and selective coding to generate codes and themes from the focus group transcripts. Categories were refined across levels using embodied categorization and constant comparative methods.\nRESULTS: In total, 20 men with prostate cancer participated in the focus groups: 5, 4, 5, and 6 men in levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Participants converged on 5 common factors influencing engagement with the intervention: environment (home environment, competing priorities, and other lifestyle programs), motivation (accountability and discordance experienced within the health care system), preparedness (technology literacy, health literacy, trust, and readiness to change), program design (communication, materials, and customization), and program support (education, ally, and community). Each of these factors influenced the survivors' long-term impressions and habits. We proposed a grounded theory associating these constructs to describe the components contributing to the intuitiveness of a web-based lifestyle intervention.\nCONCLUSIONS: These analyses suggest that web-based lifestyle interventions are more intuitive when we optimize participants' technology and health literacy; tailor interface design, content, and feedback; and leverage key motivators (ie, health care providers, family members, web-based coach) and environmental factors (ie, familiarity with other lifestyle programs). Together, these grounded theory-based efforts may improve engagement with web-based interventions designed to support prostate cancer survivorship.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tjournal = {JMIR cancer},\n\tauthor = {Wang, Elizabeth Y. and Graff, Rebecca E. and Chan, June M. and Langlais, Crystal S. and Broering, Jeanette M. and Ramsdill, Justin W. and Kessler, Elizabeth R. and Winters-Stone, Kerri M. and Van Blarigan, Erin L. and Kenfield, Stacey A.},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpmid = {33170126},\n\tpmcid = {PMC7685923},\n\tkeywords = {cancer survivorship, digital health, internet-based intervention, technology-based intervention, usability},\n\tpages = {e19362},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n BACKGROUND: Exercise and a healthy diet can improve the quality of life and prognosis of prostate cancer survivors, but there have been limited studies on the feasibility of web-based lifestyle interventions in this population. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a data-driven grounded theory of web-based engagement by prostate cancer survivors based on their experience in the Community of Wellness, a 12-week randomized clinical trial designed to support healthy diet and exercise habits. METHODS: TrueNTH's Community of Wellness was a four-arm pilot study of men with prostate cancer (N=202) who received progressive levels of behavioral support (level 1: website; level 2: website with individualized diet and exercise recommendations; level 3: website with individualized diet and exercise recommendations, Fitbit, and text messages; and level 4: website with individualized diet and exercise recommendations, Fitbit and text messages, and separate phone calls with an exercise trainer and a registered dietitian). The primary aim of the study is to determine the feasibility and estimate the effects on behaviors (results reported in a separate paper). Following the 12-week intervention, we invited participants to participate in 4 focus groups, one for each intervention level. In this report, we used grounded theory analyses including open, axial, and selective coding to generate codes and themes from the focus group transcripts. Categories were refined across levels using embodied categorization and constant comparative methods. RESULTS: In total, 20 men with prostate cancer participated in the focus groups: 5, 4, 5, and 6 men in levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Participants converged on 5 common factors influencing engagement with the intervention: environment (home environment, competing priorities, and other lifestyle programs), motivation (accountability and discordance experienced within the health care system), preparedness (technology literacy, health literacy, trust, and readiness to change), program design (communication, materials, and customization), and program support (education, ally, and community). Each of these factors influenced the survivors' long-term impressions and habits. We proposed a grounded theory associating these constructs to describe the components contributing to the intuitiveness of a web-based lifestyle intervention. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses suggest that web-based lifestyle interventions are more intuitive when we optimize participants' technology and health literacy; tailor interface design, content, and feedback; and leverage key motivators (ie, health care providers, family members, web-based coach) and environmental factors (ie, familiarity with other lifestyle programs). Together, these grounded theory-based efforts may improve engagement with web-based interventions designed to support prostate cancer survivorship.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Capturing Relevant Patient Data in Clinical Encounters Through Integration of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome System Into Routine Primary Care in a Boston Community Health Center: Development and Implementation Study.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Loo, S.; Grasso, C.; Glushkina, J.; McReynolds, J.; Lober, W.; Crane, H.; and Mayer, K. H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8): e16778. August 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{loo_capturing_2020,\n\ttitle = {Capturing {Relevant} {Patient} {Data} in {Clinical} {Encounters} {Through} {Integration} of an {Electronic} {Patient}-{Reported} {Outcome} {System} {Into} {Routine} {Primary} {Care} in a {Boston} {Community} {Health} {Center}: {Development} and {Implementation} {Study}},\n\tvolume = {22},\n\tissn = {1438-8871},\n\tshorttitle = {Capturing {Relevant} {Patient} {Data} in {Clinical} {Encounters} {Through} {Integration} of an {Electronic} {Patient}-{Reported} {Outcome} {System} {Into} {Routine} {Primary} {Care} in a {Boston} {Community} {Health} {Center}},\n\tdoi = {10.2196/16778},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems can improve health outcomes by detecting health issues or risk behaviors that may be missed when relying on provider elicitation.\nOBJECTIVE: This study aimed to implement an ePRO system that administers key health questionnaires in an urban community health center in Boston, Massachusetts.\nMETHODS: An ePRO system that administers key health questionnaires was implemented in an urban community health center in Boston, Massachusetts. The system was integrated with the electronic health record so that medical providers could review and adjudicate patient responses in real-time during the course of the patient visit. This implementation project was accomplished through careful examination of clinical workflows and a graduated rollout process that was mindful of patient and clinical staff time and burden. Patients responded to questionnaires using a tablet at the beginning of their visit.\nRESULTS: Our program demonstrates that implementation of an ePRO system in a primary care setting is feasible, allowing for facilitation of patient-provider communication and care. Other community health centers can learn from our model in terms of applying technological innovation to streamline clinical processes and improve patient care.\nCONCLUSIONS: Our program demonstrates that implementation of an ePRO system in a primary care setting is feasible, allowing for facilitation of patient-provider communication and care. Other community health centers can learn from our model for application of technological innovation to streamline clinical processes and improve patient care.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {8},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Medical Internet Research},\n\tauthor = {Loo, Stephanie and Grasso, Chris and Glushkina, Jessica and McReynolds, Justin and Lober, William and Crane, Heidi and Mayer, Kenneth H.},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpmid = {32554372},\n\tpmcid = {PMC7468634},\n\tkeywords = {Boston, Community Health Centers, Data Analysis, Humans, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, information technology in health, primary care, technology adoption, technology diffusion},\n\tpages = {e16778},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivor Wellness: Development of a Web-Based Intervention.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Amweg, L. N.; McReynolds, J.; Lansang, K.; Jones, T.; Snow, C.; Berry, D. L.; Partridge, A. H.; and Underhill-Blazey, M. L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 24(3): 284–289. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{amweg_hodgkin_2020,\n\ttitle = {Hodgkin {Lymphoma} {Survivor} {Wellness}: {Development} of a {Web}-{Based} {Intervention}},\n\tvolume = {24},\n\tissn = {1538-067X},\n\tshorttitle = {Hodgkin {Lymphoma} {Survivor} {Wellness}},\n\tdoi = {10.1188/20.CJON.284-289},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: Informational and supportive care resources are needed for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors.\nOBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to adapt and evaluate a previously developed survivorship care website for HL survivors.\nMETHODS: A mixed-methods, user-centered design, including one-time focus groups, was followed by iterative web design and user testing. Transcripts were content analyzed, and survey responses were summarized.\nFINDINGS: HL survivors need survivorship care education and support. Tailored web-based resources may be an effective adjunct to clinical care. The Survivor Wellness website is a usable web-based resource for HL survivors that may facilitate survivorship care.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing},\n\tauthor = {Amweg, Laura N. and McReynolds, Justin and Lansang, Kristina and Jones, Tarsha and Snow, Craig and Berry, Donna L. and Partridge, Ann H. and Underhill-Blazey, Meghan L.},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpmid = {32441674},\n\tkeywords = {Hodgkin lymphoma, cancer survivors, user experience, web-based intervention},\n\tpages = {284--289},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2018\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n A Controlled Pilot Trial of PainTracker Self-Manager, a Web-Based Platform Combined With Patient Coaching, to Support Patients' Self-Management of Chronic Pain.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Sullivan, M.; Langford, D. J.; Davies, P. S.; Tran, C.; Vilardaga, R.; Cheung, G.; Yoo, D.; McReynolds, J.; Lober, W. B.; Tauben, D.; and Vowles, K. E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journal of Pain, 19(9): 996–1005. September 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{sullivan_controlled_2018,\n\ttitle = {A {Controlled} {Pilot} {Trial} of {PainTracker} {Self}-{Manager}, a {Web}-{Based} {Platform} {Combined} {With} {Patient} {Coaching}, to {Support} {Patients}' {Self}-{Management} of {Chronic} {Pain}},\n\tvolume = {19},\n\tissn = {1528-8447},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.jpain.2018.03.009},\n\tabstract = {The objective of this study was to develop and pilot test a chronic pain empowerment and self-management platform, derived from acceptance and commitment therapy, in a pain specialty setting. A controlled, sequential, nonrandomized study design was used to accommodate intervention development and to test the efficacy of the PainTracker Self-Manager (PTSM) intervention (Web-based educational modules and outcome tracking combined with tailored patient coaching sessions and provider guidance). Generalized estimating equations evaluated changes over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months) in pain self-efficacy (primary outcome), chronic pain acceptance (activity engagement and pain willingness), perceived efficacy in patient-provider interactions, pain intensity and interference, and overall satisfaction with pain treatment (secondary outcomes) between intervention (n = 48) and usual care control groups (n = 51). The full study sample (N = 99) showed greater improvements over time (significant Group × Time interactions) in pain self-efficacy and satisfaction with pain treatment. Among study completers (n = 82), greater improvement in activity engagement as well as pain intensity and interference were also observed. These preliminary findings support the efficacy of the PTSM intervention in a pain specialty setting. Further research is needed to refine and expand the PTSM intervention and to test it in a randomized trial in primary care settings.\nPERSPECTIVE: We developed a Web-based patient empowerment platform that combined acceptance and commitment therapy-based educational modules and tailored coaching sessions with longitudinal tracking of treatments and patient-reported outcomes, named PTSM. Pilot controlled trial results provide preliminary support for its efficacy in improving pain self-efficacy, activity engagement, pain intensity and interference, and satisfaction with pain treatment.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {9},\n\tjournal = {The Journal of Pain},\n\tauthor = {Sullivan, Mark and Langford, Dale J. and Davies, Pamela Stitzlein and Tran, Christine and Vilardaga, Roger and Cheung, Gifford and Yoo, Daisy and McReynolds, Justin and Lober, William B. and Tauben, David and Vowles, Kevin E.},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tpmid = {29605691},\n\tpmcid = {PMC6119625},\n\tkeywords = {Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Acceptance and commitment therapy, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Chronic Pain, Female, Humans, Internet, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Management, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Pilot Projects, Self-Management, Young Adult, health coaching, patient empowerment, patient-reported outcomes},\n\tpages = {996--1005},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Evaluating clinical implementation approaches for prostate cancer decision support.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Berry, D. L.; Hong, F.; Halpenny, B.; Sanda, M. G.; Master, V. A.; Filson, C. P.; Chang, P.; Chien, G. W.; Underhill, M.; Fox, E.; McReynolds, J.; and Wolpin, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Urology Practice, 0(0). May 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Evaluating$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{berry_evaluating_2018,\n\ttitle = {Evaluating clinical implementation approaches for prostate cancer decision support},\n\tvolume = {0},\n\tissn = {2352-0779},\n\turl = {https://www.urologypracticejournal.com/article/S2352-0779(18)30086-4/abstract},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.urpr.2018.05.003},\n\tabstract = {{\\textless}h2{\\textgreater}Abstract{\\textless}/h2{\\textgreater}{\\textless}h3{\\textgreater}Purpose{\\textless}/h3{\\textgreater}{\\textless}p{\\textgreater}Shared decision making is widely promoted for counseling men with localized prostate cancer. Results of randomized trials suggest decision aid efficacy. However, few practices or institutions have implemented decision support as standard practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate various implementation strategies for the decision aid, Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, and analyze feedback from clinical site staff and providers.{\\textless}/p{\\textgreater}{\\textless}h3{\\textgreater}Materials and Methods{\\textless}/h3{\\textgreater}{\\textless}p{\\textgreater}A hybrid type-1 effectiveness-implementation trial was conducted. Primary data were collected in six urology clinics of three geographically-distinct health networks. During the implementation phase, site-specific strategies were co-designed with site leaders. Referral and access metrics for men with localized prostate cancer were monitored for up to 7 months. Clinical staff reports of barriers and facilitators of implementation were evaluated in professionally-facilitated focus groups.{\\textless}/p{\\textgreater}{\\textless}h3{\\textgreater}Results{\\textless}/h3{\\textgreater}{\\textless}p{\\textgreater}Of 495 men with localized prostate cancer seen in the clinics, 252 (51\\%; 95\\% CI 46-55\\%) were informed of the program, and 107 of those (43\\%; 95\\% CI 36-49\\%) accessed it. The highest access rates were observed with patient care coordinator email and telephone contact (82\\%) or verbal physician instruction followed by email and phone invitations (87\\%). During focus groups, physicians appraised the summaries as useful. Staff-identified barriers included creating new workflows within heavy workloads, and staff misunderstanding of context and resources. Promoters to successful implementation included an identified clinical lead and physician engagement.{\\textless}/p{\\textgreater}{\\textless}h3{\\textgreater}Conclusions{\\textless}/h3{\\textgreater}{\\textless}p{\\textgreater}Implementation success was realized when physicians engaged and staff provided follow-up contacts. New practice changes to implement interventions require multi-modal strategies for early success.{\\textless}/p{\\textgreater}},\n\tlanguage = {English},\n\tnumber = {0},\n\turldate = {2018-06-04},\n\tjournal = {Urology Practice},\n\tauthor = {Berry, Donna L. and Hong, Fangxin and Halpenny, Barbara and Sanda, Martin G. and Master, Viraj A. and Filson, Christopher P. and Chang, Peter and Chien, Gary W. and Underhill, Meghan and Fox, Erica and McReynolds, Justin and Wolpin, Seth},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2018},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n \\textlessh2\\textgreaterAbstract\\textless/h2\\textgreater\\textlessh3\\textgreaterPurpose\\textless/h3\\textgreater\\textlessp\\textgreaterShared decision making is widely promoted for counseling men with localized prostate cancer. Results of randomized trials suggest decision aid efficacy. However, few practices or institutions have implemented decision support as standard practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate various implementation strategies for the decision aid, Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, and analyze feedback from clinical site staff and providers.\\textless/p\\textgreater\\textlessh3\\textgreaterMaterials and Methods\\textless/h3\\textgreater\\textlessp\\textgreaterA hybrid type-1 effectiveness-implementation trial was conducted. Primary data were collected in six urology clinics of three geographically-distinct health networks. During the implementation phase, site-specific strategies were co-designed with site leaders. Referral and access metrics for men with localized prostate cancer were monitored for up to 7 months. Clinical staff reports of barriers and facilitators of implementation were evaluated in professionally-facilitated focus groups.\\textless/p\\textgreater\\textlessh3\\textgreaterResults\\textless/h3\\textgreater\\textlessp\\textgreaterOf 495 men with localized prostate cancer seen in the clinics, 252 (51%; 95% CI 46-55%) were informed of the program, and 107 of those (43%; 95% CI 36-49%) accessed it. The highest access rates were observed with patient care coordinator email and telephone contact (82%) or verbal physician instruction followed by email and phone invitations (87%). During focus groups, physicians appraised the summaries as useful. Staff-identified barriers included creating new workflows within heavy workloads, and staff misunderstanding of context and resources. Promoters to successful implementation included an identified clinical lead and physician engagement.\\textless/p\\textgreater\\textlessh3\\textgreaterConclusions\\textless/h3\\textgreater\\textlessp\\textgreaterImplementation success was realized when physicians engaged and staff provided follow-up contacts. New practice changes to implement interventions require multi-modal strategies for early success.\\textless/p\\textgreater\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Controlled Pilot Trial of PainTracker Self-Manager, a Web-Based Platform Combined With Patient Coaching, to Support Patients' Self-Management of Chronic Pain.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Sullivan, M.; Langford, D. J.; Davies, P. S.; Tran, C.; Vilardaga, R.; Cheung, G.; Yoo, D.; McReynolds, J.; Lober, W. B.; Tauben, D.; and Vowles, K. E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journal of Pain, 19(9): 996–1005. September 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{sullivan_controlled_2018-1,\n\ttitle = {A {Controlled} {Pilot} {Trial} of {PainTracker} {Self}-{Manager}, a {Web}-{Based} {Platform} {Combined} {With} {Patient} {Coaching}, to {Support} {Patients}' {Self}-{Management} of {Chronic} {Pain}},\n\tvolume = {19},\n\tissn = {1526-5900},\n\turl = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590018301202},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.jpain.2018.03.009},\n\tabstract = {The objective of this study was to develop and pilot test a chronic pain empowerment and self-management platform, derived from acceptance and commitment therapy, in a pain specialty setting. A controlled, sequential, nonrandomized study design was used to accommodate intervention development and to test the efficacy of the PainTracker Self-Manager (PTSM) intervention (Web-based educational modules and outcome tracking combined with tailored patient coaching sessions and provider guidance). Generalized estimating equations evaluated changes over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months) in pain self-efficacy (primary outcome), chronic pain acceptance (activity engagement and pain willingness), perceived efficacy in patient–provider interactions, pain intensity and interference, and overall satisfaction with pain treatment (secondary outcomes) between intervention (n = 48) and usual care control groups (n = 51). The full study sample (N = 99) showed greater improvements over time (significant Group × Time interactions) in pain self-efficacy and satisfaction with pain treatment. Among study completers (n = 82), greater improvement in activity engagement as well as pain intensity and interference were also observed. These preliminary findings support the efficacy of the PTSM intervention in a pain specialty setting. Further research is needed to refine and expand the PTSM intervention and to test it in a randomized trial in primary care settings.\nPerspective\nWe developed a Web-based patient empowerment platform that combined acceptance and commitment therapy-based educational modules and tailored coaching sessions with longitudinal tracking of treatments and patient-reported outcomes, named PTSM. Pilot controlled trial results provide preliminary support for its efficacy in improving pain self-efficacy, activity engagement, pain intensity and interference, and satisfaction with pain treatment.},\n\tnumber = {9},\n\turldate = {2019-07-09},\n\tjournal = {The Journal of Pain},\n\tauthor = {Sullivan, Mark and Langford, Dale J. and Davies, Pamela Stitzlein and Tran, Christine and Vilardaga, Roger and Cheung, Gifford and Yoo, Daisy and McReynolds, Justin and Lober, William B. and Tauben, David and Vowles, Kevin E.},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tkeywords = {Acceptance and commitment therapy, health coaching, patient empowerment, patient-reported outcomes},\n\tpages = {996--1005},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2017\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n TrueNTH sexual recovery study protocol: a multi-institutional collaborative approach to developing and testing a web-based intervention for couples coping with the side-effects of prostate cancer treatment in a randomized controlled trial.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wittmann, D.; Mehta, A.; Northouse, L.; Dunn, R.; Braun, T.; Duby, A.; An, L.; Arab, L.; Bangs, R.; Bober, S.; Brandon, J.; Coward, M.; Dunn, M.; Galbraith, M.; Garcia, M.; Giblin, J.; Glode, M.; Koontz, B.; Lowe, A.; Mitchell, S.; Mulhall, J.; Nelson, C.; Paich, K.; Saigal, C.; Skolarus, T.; Stanford, J.; Walsh, T.; and Pollack, C. E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMC cancer, 17(1): 664. October 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{wittmann_truenth_2017,\n\ttitle = {{TrueNTH} sexual recovery study protocol: a multi-institutional collaborative approach to developing and testing a web-based intervention for couples coping with the side-effects of prostate cancer treatment in a randomized controlled trial},\n\tvolume = {17},\n\tissn = {1471-2407},\n\tshorttitle = {{TrueNTH} sexual recovery study protocol},\n\tdoi = {10.1186/s12885-017-3652-3},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: Over half of men who receive treatment for prostate suffer from a range of sexual problems that affect negatively their sexual health, sexual intimacy with their partners and their quality of life. In clinical practice, however, care for the sexual side effects of treatment is often suboptimal or unavailable. The goal of the current study is to test a web-based intervention to support the recovery of sexual intimacy of prostate cancer survivors and their partners after treatment.\nMETHODS: The study team developed an interactive, web-based intervention, tailored to type of treatment received, relationship status (partnered/non-partnered) and sexual orientation. It consists of 10 modules, six follow the trajectory of the illness and four are theme based. They address sexual side effects, rehabilitation, psychological impacts and coaching for self-efficacy. Each includes a video to engage participants, psychoeducation and activities completed by participants on the web. Tailored strategies for identified concerns are sent by email after each module. Six of these modules will be tested in a randomized controlled trial and compared to usual care. Men with localized prostate cancer with partners will be recruited from five academic medical centers. These couples (N = 140) will be assessed prior to treatment, then 3 months and 6 months after treatment. The primary outcome will be the survivors' and partners' Global Satisfaction with Sex Life, assessed by a Patient Reported Outcome Measure Information Systems (PROMIS) measure. Secondary outcomes will include interest in sex, sexual activity, use of sexual aids, dyadic coping, knowledge about sexual recovery, grief about the loss of sexual function, and quality of life. The impact of the intervention on the couple will be assessed using the Actor-Partner Interaction Model, a mixed-effects linear regression model able to estimate both the association of partner characteristics with partner and patient outcomes and the association of patient characteristics with both outcomes.\nDISCUSSION: The web-based tool represents a novel approach to addressing the sexual health needs of prostate cancer survivors and their partners that-if found efficacious-will improve access to much needed specialty care in prostate cancer survivorship.\nTRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration \\# NCT02702453 , registered on March 3, 2016.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tjournal = {BMC cancer},\n\tauthor = {Wittmann, D. and Mehta, A. and Northouse, L. and Dunn, R. and Braun, T. and Duby, A. and An, L. and Arab, L. and Bangs, R. and Bober, S. and Brandon, J. and Coward, M. and Dunn, M. and Galbraith, M. and Garcia, M. and Giblin, J. and Glode, M. and Koontz, B. and Lowe, A. and Mitchell, S. and Mulhall, J. and Nelson, C. and Paich, K. and Saigal, C. and Skolarus, T. and Stanford, J. and Walsh, T. and Pollack, C. E.},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tpmid = {28969611},\n\tpmcid = {PMC5625773},\n\tkeywords = {Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Internet, Male, Middle Aged, Prostate cancer sexual recovery cancer survivorship intervention, Prostatic Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological, Sexual Dysfunctions, Psychological, Sexual Partners, Spouses, Stress, Psychological, Young Adult},\n\tpages = {664},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n BACKGROUND: Over half of men who receive treatment for prostate suffer from a range of sexual problems that affect negatively their sexual health, sexual intimacy with their partners and their quality of life. In clinical practice, however, care for the sexual side effects of treatment is often suboptimal or unavailable. The goal of the current study is to test a web-based intervention to support the recovery of sexual intimacy of prostate cancer survivors and their partners after treatment. METHODS: The study team developed an interactive, web-based intervention, tailored to type of treatment received, relationship status (partnered/non-partnered) and sexual orientation. It consists of 10 modules, six follow the trajectory of the illness and four are theme based. They address sexual side effects, rehabilitation, psychological impacts and coaching for self-efficacy. Each includes a video to engage participants, psychoeducation and activities completed by participants on the web. Tailored strategies for identified concerns are sent by email after each module. Six of these modules will be tested in a randomized controlled trial and compared to usual care. Men with localized prostate cancer with partners will be recruited from five academic medical centers. These couples (N = 140) will be assessed prior to treatment, then 3 months and 6 months after treatment. The primary outcome will be the survivors' and partners' Global Satisfaction with Sex Life, assessed by a Patient Reported Outcome Measure Information Systems (PROMIS) measure. Secondary outcomes will include interest in sex, sexual activity, use of sexual aids, dyadic coping, knowledge about sexual recovery, grief about the loss of sexual function, and quality of life. The impact of the intervention on the couple will be assessed using the Actor-Partner Interaction Model, a mixed-effects linear regression model able to estimate both the association of partner characteristics with partner and patient outcomes and the association of patient characteristics with both outcomes. DISCUSSION: The web-based tool represents a novel approach to addressing the sexual health needs of prostate cancer survivors and their partners that-if found efficacious-will improve access to much needed specialty care in prostate cancer survivorship. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration # NCT02702453 , registered on March 3, 2016.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n HIV Provider Documentation and Actions Following Patient Reports of At-risk Behaviors and Conditions When Identified by a Web-Based Point-of-Care Assessment.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Crane, H. M.; Crane, P. K.; Tufano, J. T.; Ralston, J. D.; Wilson, I. B.; Brown, T. D.; Davis, T. E.; Smith, L. F.; Lober, W. B.; McReynolds, J.; Dhanireddy, S.; Harrington, R. D.; Rodriguez, C. V.; Nance, R. M.; Delaney, J. A. C.; Safren, S. A.; Kitahata, M. M.; and Fredericksen, R. J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n AIDS and behavior, 21(11): 3111–3121. November 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{crane_hiv_2017,\n\ttitle = {{HIV} {Provider} {Documentation} and {Actions} {Following} {Patient} {Reports} of {At}-risk {Behaviors} and {Conditions} {When} {Identified} by a {Web}-{Based} {Point}-of-{Care} {Assessment}},\n\tvolume = {21},\n\tissn = {1573-3254},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10461-017-1718-5},\n\tabstract = {We compared same-day provider medical record documentation and interventions addressing depression and risk behaviors before and after delivering point-of-care patient-reported outcomes (PROs) feedback for patients who self-reported clinically relevant levels of depression or risk behaviors. During the study period (1 January 2006-15 October 2010), 2289 PRO assessments were completed by HIV-infected patients. Comparing the 8 months before versus after feedback implementation, providers were more likely to document depression (74\\% before vs. 87\\% after feedback, p = 0.02) in patients with moderate-to-severe depression (n = 317 assessments), at-risk alcohol use (41 vs. 64\\%, p = 0.04, n = 155) and substance use (60 vs. 80\\%, p = 0.004, n = 212). Providers were less likely to incorrectly document good adherence among patients with inadequate adherence after feedback (42 vs. 24\\%, p = 0.02, n = 205). While PRO feedback of depression and adherence were followed by increased provider intervention, other domains were not. Further investigation of factors associated with the gap between awareness and intervention are needed in order to bridge this divide.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {11},\n\tjournal = {AIDS and behavior},\n\tauthor = {Crane, Heidi M. and Crane, Paul K. and Tufano, James T. and Ralston, James D. and Wilson, Ira B. and Brown, Tyler D. and Davis, Thomas E. and Smith, Laurie F. and Lober, William B. and McReynolds, Justin and Dhanireddy, Shireesha and Harrington, Robert D. and Rodriguez, Carla V. and Nance, Robin M. and Delaney, Joseph A. C. and Safren, Steven A. and Kitahata, Mari M. and Fredericksen, Rob J.},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tpmid = {28205041},\n\tpmcid = {PMC6021024},\n\tkeywords = {Adherence, Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Alcohol use, Anti-HIV Agents, Data Collection, Depression, Documentation, Female, HIV Infections, Humans, Internet, Male, Medication Adherence, Middle Aged, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Patient reported outcomes, Point-of-Care Systems, Risk-Taking, Sexual risk behavior, Substance use, Substance-Related Disorders, Treatment Outcome},\n\tpages = {3111--3121},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2016\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Provider perceptions of the value of same-day, electronic patient-reported measures for use in clinical HIV care.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Fredericksen, R. J.; Tufano, J.; Ralston, J.; McReynolds, J.; Stewart, M.; Lober, W. B.; Mayer, K. H.; Mathews, W. C.; Mugavero, M. J.; Crane, P. K.; and Crane, H. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n AIDS care,1–6. May 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{fredericksen_provider_2016,\n\ttitle = {Provider perceptions of the value of same-day, electronic patient-reported measures for use in clinical {HIV} care},\n\tissn = {1360-0451},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/09540121.2016.1189501},\n\tabstract = {Strong evidence suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) aid in managing chronic conditions, reduce omissions in care, and improve patient-provider communication. However, provider acceptability of PROs and their use in clinical HIV care is not well known. We interviewed providers (n = 27) from four geographically diverse HIV and community care clinics in the US that have integrated PROs into routine HIV care, querying perceived value, challenges, and use of PRO data. Perceived benefits included the ability of PROs to identify less-observable behaviors and conditions, particularly suicidal ideation, depression, and substance use; usefulness in agenda setting prior to a visit; and reduction of social desirability bias in patient-provider communication. Challenges included initial flow integration issues and ease of interpretation of PRO feedback. Providers value same-day, electronic patient-reported measures for use in clinical HIV care with the condition that PROs are (1) tailored to be the most clinically relevant to their population; (2) well integrated into clinic flow; and (3) easy to interpret, highlighting chief patient concerns and changes over time.},\n\tlanguage = {ENG},\n\tjournal = {AIDS care},\n\tauthor = {Fredericksen, R. J. and Tufano, J. and Ralston, J. and McReynolds, J. and Stewart, M. and Lober, W. B. and Mayer, K. H. and Mathews, W. C. and Mugavero, M. J. and Crane, P. K. and Crane, H. M.},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tpmid = {27237187},\n\tkeywords = {HIV care, Patient-reported outcomes},\n\tpages = {1--6},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and its association with outcome measures in a general chronic pain population.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Theodore, B.; Balsiger, D.; Tran, C.; McReynolds, J.; Lober, W.; Tauben, D.; and Sullivan, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journal of Pain, 17(4): S6. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Prevalence$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{theodore_prevalence_2016,\n\ttitle = {Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and its association with outcome measures in a general chronic pain population},\n\tvolume = {17},\n\tissn = {1526-5900, 1528-8447},\n\turl = {http://www.jpain.org/article/S1526590016000559/abstract},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.jpain.2016.01.025},\n\tlanguage = {English},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\turldate = {2016-06-05},\n\tjournal = {The Journal of Pain},\n\tauthor = {Theodore, B. and Balsiger, D. and Tran, C. and McReynolds, J. and Lober, W. and Tauben, D. and Sullivan, M.},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tpages = {S6},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Open-Source Computerized Patient-Reported Outcomes: Case Studies Illustrating Fifteen Years of Evolution.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n McReynolds, J. R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, July 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Open-Source$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{mcreynolds_open-source_2016,\n\ttype = {Thesis},\n\ttitle = {Open-{Source} {Computerized} {Patient}-{Reported} {Outcomes}: {Case} {Studies} {Illustrating} {Fifteen} {Years} of {Evolution}},\n\tshorttitle = {Open-{Source} {Computerized} {Patient}-{Reported} {Outcomes}},\n\turl = {https://digital.lib.washington.edu:443/researchworks/handle/1773/36504},\n\tabstract = {Over a fifteen year period, Patient Reported Outcomes ("PRO") applications to support over forty clinical and research projects have driven the evolution of an open-source computerized PRO system ("cPRO", http://cprohealth.org). The projects varied widely in PRO content, clinical domain, and workflows. Detailed case studies of six major implementations of the cPRO system offer a framework to understand the socio-technical challenges and opportunities in collecting computerized PROs and incorporating PROs into clinical care, patient-centered tools, and research.},\n\tlanguage = {en\\_US},\n\turldate = {2017-11-02},\n\tauthor = {McReynolds, Justin Ross},\n\tmonth = jul,\n\tyear = {2016},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2015\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Selecting and prioritizing patient reported outcomes and preventative screenings for clinical and research use in community health primary care clinics.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Loo, S; Boswell, S; Mayer, K; Crane, HM; Lober, W; McReynolds, J; Grasso, C; and Dant, L\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In 2015. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{loo_s_selecting_2015,\n\ttitle = {Selecting and prioritizing patient reported outcomes and preventative screenings for clinical and research use in community health primary care clinics.},\n\tauthor = {{Loo, S} and {Boswell, S} and {Mayer, K} and {Crane, HM} and {Lober, W} and {McReynolds, J} and {Grasso, C} and {Dant, L}},\n\tyear = {2015},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n PainTracker: development and implementation of a web-based pain assessment and outcomes tracking tool for primary and specialty clinical care.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Tran, C.; McReynolds, J.; Theodore, B.; Lober, W.; Sullivan, M.; and Tauben, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journal of Pain, 16(4): S23. April 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"PainTracker:$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{tran_paintracker_2015,\n\ttitle = {{PainTracker}: development and implementation of a web-based pain assessment and outcomes tracking tool for primary and specialty clinical care},\n\tvolume = {16},\n\tissn = {1526-5900, 1528-8447},\n\tshorttitle = {(188) {PainTracker}},\n\turl = {http://www.jpain.org/article/S1526590015001406/abstract},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.102},\n\tlanguage = {English},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\turldate = {2016-06-05},\n\tjournal = {The Journal of Pain},\n\tauthor = {Tran, C. and McReynolds, J. and Theodore, B. and Lober, W. and Sullivan, M. and Tauben, D.},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tpages = {S23},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Exposure to a Patient-Centered, Web-Based Intervention for Managing Cancer Symptom and Quality of Life Issues: Impact on Symptom Distress.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Berry, D. L.; Blonquist, T. M.; Patel, R. A.; Halpenny, B.; and McReynolds, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(6): e136. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Exposure$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{berry_exposure_2015,\n\ttitle = {Exposure to a {Patient}-{Centered}, {Web}-{Based} {Intervention} for {Managing} {Cancer} {Symptom} and {Quality} of {Life} {Issues}: {Impact} on {Symptom} {Distress}},\n\tvolume = {17},\n\tcopyright = {Unless stated otherwise, all articles are open-access distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work (},\n\tshorttitle = {Exposure to a {Patient}-{Centered}, {Web}-{Based} {Intervention} for {Managing} {Cancer} {Symptom} and {Quality} of {Life} {Issues}},\n\turl = {http://www.jmir.org/2015/6/e136/},\n\tdoi = {10.2196/jmir.4190},\n\tabstract = {Background: Effective eHealth interventions can benefit a large number of patients with content intended to support self-care and management of both chronic and acute conditions. Even though usage statistics are easily logged in most eHealth interventions, usage or exposure has rarely been reported in trials, let alone studied in relationship to effectiveness. Objective: The intent of the study was to evaluate use of a fully automated, Web-based program, the Electronic Self Report Assessment-Cancer (ESRA-C), and how delivery and total use of the intervention may have affected cancer symptom distress. Methods: Patients at two cancer centers used ESRA-C to self-report symptom and quality of life (SxQOL) issues during therapy. Participants were randomized to ESRA-C assessment only (control) or the ESRA-C intervention delivered via the Internet to patients\\&\\#8217; homes or to a tablet at the clinic. The intervention enabled participants to self-monitor SxQOL and receive self-care education and customized coaching on how to report concerns to clinicians. Overall and voluntary intervention use were defined as having \\&\\#8805;2 exposures, and one non-prompted exposure to the intervention, respectively. Factors associated with intervention use were explored with Fisher\\&\\#8217;s exact test. Propensity score matching was used to select a sample of control participants similar to intervention participants who used the intervention. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare change in Symptom Distress Scale (SDS-15) scores from pre-treatment to end-of-study by groups in the matched sample. Results: Radiation oncology participants used the intervention, overall and voluntarily, more than medical oncology and transplant participants. Participants who were working and had more than a high school education voluntarily used the intervention more. The SDS-15 score was reduced by an estimated 1.53 points ( P =.01) in the intervention group users compared to the matched control group. Conclusions: The intended effects of a Web-based, patient-centered intervention on cancer symptom distress were modified by intervention use frequency. Clinical and personal demographics influenced voluntary use. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00852852; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00852852 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6YwAfwWl7).  [J Med Internet Res 2015;17(6):e136]},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\turldate = {2016-04-19},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Medical Internet Research},\n\tauthor = {Berry, Donna L. and Blonquist, Traci M. and Patel, Rupa A. and Halpenny, Barbara and McReynolds, Justin},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tpages = {e136},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n Background: Effective eHealth interventions can benefit a large number of patients with content intended to support self-care and management of both chronic and acute conditions. Even though usage statistics are easily logged in most eHealth interventions, usage or exposure has rarely been reported in trials, let alone studied in relationship to effectiveness. Objective: The intent of the study was to evaluate use of a fully automated, Web-based program, the Electronic Self Report Assessment-Cancer (ESRA-C), and how delivery and total use of the intervention may have affected cancer symptom distress. Methods: Patients at two cancer centers used ESRA-C to self-report symptom and quality of life (SxQOL) issues during therapy. Participants were randomized to ESRA-C assessment only (control) or the ESRA-C intervention delivered via the Internet to patients’ homes or to a tablet at the clinic. The intervention enabled participants to self-monitor SxQOL and receive self-care education and customized coaching on how to report concerns to clinicians. Overall and voluntary intervention use were defined as having ≥2 exposures, and one non-prompted exposure to the intervention, respectively. Factors associated with intervention use were explored with Fisher’s exact test. Propensity score matching was used to select a sample of control participants similar to intervention participants who used the intervention. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare change in Symptom Distress Scale (SDS-15) scores from pre-treatment to end-of-study by groups in the matched sample. Results: Radiation oncology participants used the intervention, overall and voluntarily, more than medical oncology and transplant participants. Participants who were working and had more than a high school education voluntarily used the intervention more. The SDS-15 score was reduced by an estimated 1.53 points ( P =.01) in the intervention group users compared to the matched control group. Conclusions: The intended effects of a Web-based, patient-centered intervention on cancer symptom distress were modified by intervention use frequency. Clinical and personal demographics influenced voluntary use. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00852852; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00852852 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6YwAfwWl7). [J Med Internet Res 2015;17(6):e136]\n

\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2014\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Using electronic patient reported outcomes to meet Meaningful Use and Patient Centered Medical Home Requirements.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Dant, L; Boswell, S; Mayer, K; Grasso, C; Crane, HM; Lober, W; and McReynolds, J\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In 2014. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{dant_l_using_2014,\n\ttitle = {Using electronic patient reported outcomes to meet {Meaningful} {Use} and {Patient} {Centered} {Medical} {Home} {Requirements}.},\n\tauthor = {{Dant, L} and {Boswell, S} and {Mayer, K} and {Grasso, C} and {Crane, HM} and {Lober, W} and {McReynolds, J}},\n\tyear = {2014},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Development and usability testing of a web-based cancer symptom and quality-of-life support intervention.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wolpin, S. E.; Halpenny, B.; Whitman, G.; McReynolds, J.; Stewart, M.; Lober, W. B.; and Berry, D. L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Health Informatics Journal,1460458213495744. January 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Development$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{wolpin_development_2014,\n\ttitle = {Development and usability testing of a web-based cancer symptom and quality-of-life support intervention},\n\tissn = {1460-4582, 1741-2811},\n\turl = {http://jhi.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/08/1460458213495744},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/1460458213495744},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2014-01-29},\n\tjournal = {Health Informatics Journal},\n\tauthor = {Wolpin, S. E. and Halpenny, B. and Whitman, G. and McReynolds, J. and Stewart, M. and Lober, W. B. and Berry, D. L.},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tpmid = {24406906},\n\tpages = {1460458213495744},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2011\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Validation and testing of the Acceptability E-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Tariman, J. D.; Berry, D. L.; Halpenny, B.; Wolpin, S.; and Schepp, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Applied nursing research: ANR, 24(1): 53–58. February 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{tariman_validation_2011,\n\ttitle = {Validation and testing of the {Acceptability} {E}-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care},\n\tvolume = {24},\n\tissn = {1532-8201},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.apnr.2009.04.003},\n\tabstract = {The performance of the Acceptability E-scale was tested in a sample of 627 adult and older adult patients from various oncology clinics who completed an electronic symptoms survey. The revised Acceptability E-scale has strong psychometric properties and can be useful in assessing the acceptability and usability of computerized health-related programs in oncology and other health population.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tjournal = {Applied nursing research: ANR},\n\tauthor = {Tariman, Joseph D. and Berry, Donna L. and Halpenny, Barbara and Wolpin, Seth and Schepp, Karen},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tpmid = {20974066},\n\tpmcid = {PMC3030937},\n\tkeywords = {Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Internet, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Patient Satisfaction, Program Evaluation, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult},\n\tpages = {53--58},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Deliberate and Rigorous Approach to Development of Patient-centered Technologies.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wolpin, S.; and Stewart, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Seminars in oncology nursing, 27(3): 183–191. August 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{wolpin_deliberate_2011,\n\ttitle = {A {Deliberate} and {Rigorous} {Approach} to {Development} of {Patient}-centered {Technologies}},\n\tvolume = {27},\n\tissn = {0749-2081},\n\turl = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3189856/},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.soncn.2011.04.003},\n\tabstract = {Objectives\nMany technologies intended for patient use are never developed or evaluated with principles of user-centered design. In this review, we explore different approaches to assessing usability and acceptability, drawn from selected exemplar studies in the health sciences literature.\n\nData sources\nPeer-reviewed research manuscripts were selected from Medline and other data sources accessible through pubmed.gov. We also present a framework for developing patient-centered technologies that we recently employed.\n\nConclusions\nWhile there are studies utilizing principles of user-centered design, many more do not report formative usability testing results and may only report post-hoc satisfaction surveys. Consequently, adoption by user groups may be limited.\n\nImplications for Nursing Practice\nWe encourage nurses in practice to look for and examine usability testing results prior to considering implementation of any patient-centered technology.},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-01-27},\n\tjournal = {Seminars in oncology nursing},\n\tauthor = {Wolpin, Seth and Stewart, Mark},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tpmid = {21783009},\n\tpmcid = {PMC3189856},\n\tpages = {183--191},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Patient-Reported Symptoms and Quality of Life Integrated into Clinical Cancer Care.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Berry, D. L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 27(3): 203–210. August 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Patient-Reported$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{berry_patient-reported_2011,\n\tseries = {Patient-{Centered} {Technologies}: {Enhancing} {Communication} and {Self}-{Care} for {Patients} and {Caregivers}},\n\ttitle = {Patient-{Reported} {Symptoms} and {Quality} of {Life} {Integrated} into {Clinical} {Cancer} {Care}},\n\tvolume = {27},\n\tissn = {0749-2081},\n\turl = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749208111000337},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.soncn.2011.04.005},\n\tabstract = {Objectives\nTo provide an overview of research and practice related to patient-reported symptom and quality-of-life assessment integrated into clinical care.\nData Sources\nLiterature retrieved through the PUBMED and CINAHL databases.\nConclusion\nAssessing and incorporating patient preferences, engaging the patient in self-report, and extending the interaction to the place and time favored by the patient are necessary to bring meaning to the term “patient-centered.” There is beginning evidence that these approaches can make a difference, improving care quality.\nImplications for Nursing Practice\nOncology nurses no longer need to be constrained by paper symptom checklists. Patient-reported symptom and quality-of-life information can be electronically collected and simultaneously made available for home and clinical use through the utilization of Web-based programs.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-01-27},\n\tjournal = {Seminars in Oncology Nursing},\n\tauthor = {Berry, Donna L.},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tkeywords = {Cancer symptoms, clinical informatics, patient-centered care, patient-reported outcomes, quality of life},\n\tpages = {203--210},\n}\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2010\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Routine, self-administered, touch-screen, computer-based suicidal ideation assessment linked to automated response team notification in an HIV primary care setting.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Lawrence, S. T.; Willig, J. H.; Crane, H. M.; Ye, J.; Aban, I.; Lober, W.; Nevin, C. R.; Batey, D. S.; Mugavero, M. J.; McCullumsmith, C.; Wright, C.; Kitahata, M.; Raper, J. L.; Saag, M. S.; and Schumacher, J. E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 50(8): 1165–1173. April 2010.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{lawrence_routine_2010,\n\ttitle = {Routine, self-administered, touch-screen, computer-based suicidal ideation assessment linked to automated response team notification in an {HIV} primary care setting},\n\tvolume = {50},\n\tissn = {1537-6591},\n\tdoi = {10.1086/651420},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS continue to be associated with an underrecognized risk for suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, and completed suicide. Suicidal ideation represents an important predictor for subsequent attempted and completed suicide. We sought to implement routine screening of suicidal ideation and associated conditions using computerized patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments.\nMETHODS: Two geographically distinct academic HIV primary care clinics enrolled patients who attended scheduled visits from December 2005 through February 2009. Touch-screen, computer-based PRO assessments were implemented into routine clinical care. Substance abuse, alcohol consumption, depression, and anxiety were assessed. The 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire assesses the frequency of suicidal ideation in the preceding 2 weeks. A response of "nearly every day" triggered an automated page to predetermined clinic personnel, who completed more detailed self-harm assessments.\nRESULTS: Overall, 1216 patients (740 from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and 476 from the University of Washington) completed the initial PRO assessment during the study period. Patients were predominantly white (646 [53\\%]) and male (959 [79\\%]), with a mean age (+/- standard deviation) of 44 +/- 10 years. Among surveyed patients, 170 (14\\%) endorsed some level of suicidal ideation, whereas 33 (3\\%) admitted suicidal ideation nearly every day. In multivariable analysis, suicidal ideation risk was lower with advancing age (odds ratio [OR], 0.74 per 10 years; 95\\% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.96) and was increased with current substance abuse (OR, 1.88; 95\\% CI, 1.03-3.44) and more-severe depression (OR, 3.91 for moderate depression [95\\% CI, 2.12-7.22] and 25.55 for severe depression [95\\% CI, 12.73-51.30]).\nDISCUSSION: Suicidal ideation was associated with current substance abuse and depression. The use of novel technologies to incorporate routine self-reported screening for suicidal ideation and other health domains allows for timely detection and intervention for this life-threatening condition.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {8},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America},\n\tauthor = {Lawrence, Sarah T. and Willig, James H. and Crane, Heidi M. and Ye, Jiatao and Aban, Inmaculada and Lober, William and Nevin, Christa R. and Batey, D. Scott and Mugavero, Michael J. and McCullumsmith, Cheryl and Wright, Charles and Kitahata, Mari and Raper, James L. and Saag, Micheal S. and Schumacher, Joseph E.},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tpmid = {20210646},\n\tpmcid = {PMC2841210},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Alabama, Animals, Automation, Computers, Depressive Disorder, Female, HIV Infections, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Suicide, Surveys and Questionnaires, Telemedicine, Washington},\n\tpages = {1165--1173},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS continue to be associated with an underrecognized risk for suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, and completed suicide. Suicidal ideation represents an important predictor for subsequent attempted and completed suicide. We sought to implement routine screening of suicidal ideation and associated conditions using computerized patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments. METHODS: Two geographically distinct academic HIV primary care clinics enrolled patients who attended scheduled visits from December 2005 through February 2009. Touch-screen, computer-based PRO assessments were implemented into routine clinical care. Substance abuse, alcohol consumption, depression, and anxiety were assessed. The 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire assesses the frequency of suicidal ideation in the preceding 2 weeks. A response of \"nearly every day\" triggered an automated page to predetermined clinic personnel, who completed more detailed self-harm assessments. RESULTS: Overall, 1216 patients (740 from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and 476 from the University of Washington) completed the initial PRO assessment during the study period. Patients were predominantly white (646 [53%]) and male (959 [79%]), with a mean age (+/- standard deviation) of 44 +/- 10 years. Among surveyed patients, 170 (14%) endorsed some level of suicidal ideation, whereas 33 (3%) admitted suicidal ideation nearly every day. In multivariable analysis, suicidal ideation risk was lower with advancing age (odds ratio [OR], 0.74 per 10 years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.96) and was increased with current substance abuse (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.03-3.44) and more-severe depression (OR, 3.91 for moderate depression [95% CI, 2.12-7.22] and 25.55 for severe depression [95% CI, 12.73-51.30]). DISCUSSION: Suicidal ideation was associated with current substance abuse and depression. The use of novel technologies to incorporate routine self-reported screening for suicidal ideation and other health domains allows for timely detection and intervention for this life-threatening condition.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Effects of Coaching Patients With Lung Cancer to Report Cancer Pain.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wilkie, D.; Berry, D.; Cain, K.; Huang, H.; Mekwa, J.; Lewis, F.; Gallucci, B.; Lin, Y.; Chen, A. C.; and Ko, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Western Journal of Nursing Research, 32(1): 23–46. February 2010.\n Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Effects$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{wilkie_effects_2010,\n\ttitle = {Effects of {Coaching} {Patients} {With} {Lung} {Cancer} to {Report} {Cancer} {Pain}},\n\tvolume = {32},\n\tissn = {0193-9459},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945909348009},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/0193945909348009},\n\tabstract = {The authors have examined the effects of coaching sensory self-monitoring and reporting on pain-related variables in patients with lung cancer. Randomly assigned to coached or not-coached groups, 215 patients have their interactions with their providers audiotaped and complete study measures pre- and postintervention. Of the 151 patients who complete the 4-week study, those coached are more likely than those not coached to give their providers unsolicited sensory pain information and to mention it before their providers ask for it. The mean number of pain parameters discussed during the audiotaped clinic visit is statistically larger at study end for the coached group. Scores for analgesic adequacy, all pain indices except one, anxiety, depression, and catastrophizing coping are not significantly different. Although coaching increases the amount of pain data communicated to providers by patients with lung cancer, the magnitude is small and does not lead to improved adequacy of analgesics prescribed for each patient’s pain level.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-01-27},\n\tjournal = {Western Journal of Nursing Research},\n\tauthor = {Wilkie, Diana and Berry, Donna and Cain, Kevin and Huang, Hsiu-Ying and Mekwa, Julia and Lewis, Frances and Gallucci, Betty and Lin, Yu-Chuan and Chen, Angela Chia-Chen and Ko, Nai-Ying},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tnote = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc},\n\tkeywords = {coaching, lung cancer, pain, patient-centered communications, self-monitoring, self-reporting},\n\tpages = {23--46},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Development and evaluation of the personal patient profile-prostate (P3P), a Web-based decision support system for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Berry, D. L.; Halpenny, B.; Wolpin, S.; Davison, B. J.; Ellis, W. J.; Lober, W. B.; McReynolds, J.; and Wulff, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(4): e67. December 2010.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{berry_development_2010,\n\ttitle = {Development and evaluation of the personal patient profile-prostate ({P3P}), a {Web}-based decision support system for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer},\n\tvolume = {12},\n\tissn = {1438-8871},\n\tdoi = {10.2196/jmir.1576},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: Given that no other disease with the high incidence of localized prostate cancer (LPC) has so many treatments with so few certainties related to outcomes, many men are faced with assuming some responsibility for the treatment decision along with guidance from clinicians. Men strongly consider their own personal characteristics and other personal factors as important and influential to the decision. Clinical researchers have not developed or comprehensively investigated interventions to facilitate the insight and prioritizing of personal factors along with medical factors that are required of a man in preparation for the treatment decision.\nOBJECTIVES: The purpose of this pilot study was to develop and evaluate the feasibility and usability of a Web-based decision support technology, the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), in men newly diagnosed with LPC.\nMETHODS: Use cases were developed followed by infrastructure and content application. The program was provided on a personal desktop computer with a touch screen monitor. Participant responses to the query component of P3P determined the content of the multimedia educational and coaching intervention. The intervention was tailored to race, age, and personal factors reported as influencing the decision. Prepilot usability testing was conducted using a "think aloud" interview to identify navigation and content challenges. These issues were addressed prior to deployment in the clinic. A clinical pilot was conducted in an academic medical center where men sought consultation and treatment for LPC. Completion time, missing data, and acceptability were measured.\nRESULTS: Prepilot testing included 4 men with a past diagnosis of LPC who had completed therapy. Technical navigation issues were documented along with confusing content language. A total of 30 additional men with a recent diagnosis of LPC completed the P3P program in clinic prior to consulting with a urologist regarding treatment options. In a mean time of 46 minutes (SD 13 minutes), participants completed the P3P query and intervention components. Of a possible 4560 items for 30 participants, 22 (0.5\\%) were missing. Acceptability was reported as high overall. The sections of the intervention reported as most useful were the statistics graphs, priority information topics, and annotated external website links.\nCONCLUSIONS: The P3P intervention is a feasible and usable program to facilitate treatment decision making by men with newly diagnosed LPC. Testing in a multisite randomized trial with a diverse sample is warranted.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Medical Internet Research},\n\tauthor = {Berry, Donna L. and Halpenny, Barbara and Wolpin, Seth and Davison, B. Joyce and Ellis, William J. and Lober, William B. and McReynolds, Justin and Wulff, Jennifer},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tpmid = {21169159},\n\tpmcid = {PMC3056527},\n\tkeywords = {Aged, Counseling, Decision Making, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Decision Support Techniques, Feasibility Studies, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Pilot Projects, Program Evaluation, Prostatic Neoplasms, Software, User-Computer Interface},\n\tpages = {e67},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n BACKGROUND: Given that no other disease with the high incidence of localized prostate cancer (LPC) has so many treatments with so few certainties related to outcomes, many men are faced with assuming some responsibility for the treatment decision along with guidance from clinicians. Men strongly consider their own personal characteristics and other personal factors as important and influential to the decision. Clinical researchers have not developed or comprehensively investigated interventions to facilitate the insight and prioritizing of personal factors along with medical factors that are required of a man in preparation for the treatment decision. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this pilot study was to develop and evaluate the feasibility and usability of a Web-based decision support technology, the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), in men newly diagnosed with LPC. METHODS: Use cases were developed followed by infrastructure and content application. The program was provided on a personal desktop computer with a touch screen monitor. Participant responses to the query component of P3P determined the content of the multimedia educational and coaching intervention. The intervention was tailored to race, age, and personal factors reported as influencing the decision. Prepilot usability testing was conducted using a \"think aloud\" interview to identify navigation and content challenges. These issues were addressed prior to deployment in the clinic. A clinical pilot was conducted in an academic medical center where men sought consultation and treatment for LPC. Completion time, missing data, and acceptability were measured. RESULTS: Prepilot testing included 4 men with a past diagnosis of LPC who had completed therapy. Technical navigation issues were documented along with confusing content language. A total of 30 additional men with a recent diagnosis of LPC completed the P3P program in clinic prior to consulting with a urologist regarding treatment options. In a mean time of 46 minutes (SD 13 minutes), participants completed the P3P query and intervention components. Of a possible 4560 items for 30 participants, 22 (0.5%) were missing. Acceptability was reported as high overall. The sections of the intervention reported as most useful were the statistics graphs, priority information topics, and annotated external website links. CONCLUSIONS: The P3P intervention is a feasible and usable program to facilitate treatment decision making by men with newly diagnosed LPC. Testing in a multisite randomized trial with a diverse sample is warranted.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Measuring depression levels in HIV-infected patients as part of routine clinical care using the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Crane, P. K.; Gibbons, L. E.; Willig, J. H.; Mugavero, M. J.; Lawrence, S. T.; Schumacher, J. E.; Saag, M. S.; Kitahata, M. M.; and Crane, H. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n AIDS care, 22(7): 874–885. July 2010.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{crane_measuring_2010,\n\ttitle = {Measuring depression levels in {HIV}-infected patients as part of routine clinical care using the nine-item {Patient} {Health} {Questionnaire} ({PHQ}-9)},\n\tvolume = {22},\n\tissn = {1360-0451},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/09540120903483034},\n\tabstract = {Little is known about the psychometric properties of depression instruments among persons infected with HIV. We analyzed data from a large sample of patients in usual care in two US cities (n=1467) using the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) from the PRIME-MD. The PHQ-9 had curvilinear scaling properties and varying levels of measurement precision along the continuum of depression measured by the instrument. In our cohort, the scale showed a prominent floor effect and a distribution of scores across depression severity levels. Three items had differential item functioning (DIF) with respect to race (African-American vs. white); two had DIF with respect to sex; and one had DIF with respect to age. There was minimal individual-level DIF impact. Twenty percent of the difference in mean depression levels between African-Americans and whites was due to DIF. While standard scores for the PHQ-9 may be appropriate for use with individual HIV-infected patients in cross-sectional settings, these results suggest that investigations of depression across groups and within patients across time may require a more sophisticated analytic framework.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {7},\n\tjournal = {AIDS care},\n\tauthor = {Crane, P. K. and Gibbons, L. E. and Willig, J. H. and Mugavero, M. J. and Lawrence, S. T. and Schumacher, J. E. and Saag, M. S. and Kitahata, M. M. and Crane, H. M.},\n\tmonth = jul,\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tpmid = {20635252},\n\tpmcid = {PMC3410748},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depressive Disorder, Female, HIV Infections, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Young Adult},\n\tpages = {874--885},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2009\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Lipoatrophy and lipohypertrophy are independently associated with hypertension.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Crane, H. M.; Grunfeld, C.; Harrington, R. D.; and Kitahata, M. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n HIV medicine, 10(8): 496–503. September 2009.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{crane_lipoatrophy_2009,\n\ttitle = {Lipoatrophy and lipohypertrophy are independently associated with hypertension},\n\tvolume = {10},\n\tissn = {1468-1293},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/j.1468-1293.2009.00720.x},\n\tabstract = {OBJECTIVE: Lipoatrophy and lipohypertrophy are associated with metabolic abnormalities, but little is known about their impact on hypertension. We conducted this study to determine the associations of lipoatrophy and lipohypertrophy with hypertension.\nMETHODS: A cross-sectional study of HIV-infected patients who completed a self-report body morphology assessment was performed. We defined hypertension as a clinical diagnosis, or a mean systolic blood pressure (BP) {\\textgreater} 140 mmHg or diastolic BP {\\textgreater} 90 mmHg in the previous 6 months. We used logistic regression to examine the association between hypertension and body morphology.\nRESULTS: Among 347 patients, there were 2278 BP readings in 6 months. In adjusted analyses, patients with moderate lipoatrophy [odds ratio (OR) 4.3; P = 0.03] or moderate lipohypertrophy (OR 4.3; P = 0.006) had four times the odds, and patients with mild lipohypertrophy (OR 2.3; P = 0.03) had twice the odds of having hypertension compared with patients without changes. We hypothesized that the impact of lipohypertrophy on hypertension was mediated, in part, through body mass index (BMI). When BMI was included in the analysis, increased BMI was significantly associated with hypertension (OR = 1.1; P {\\textless} 0.001 per kg/m(2)), and the association between lipohypertrophy and hypertension was no longer present. However, the association between moderate lipoatrophy and hypertension was strengthened (OR = 5.5; P = 0.01).\nCONCLUSIONS: Lipoatrophy and lipohypertrophy are independently associated with hypertension and there is a dose-response effect with more severe lipoatrophy and lipohypertrophy. The association between lipohypertrophy (but not lipoatrophy) and hypertension appears to be mediated by BMI. Our results suggest that patient-based body morphology assessments are related to hypertension and may have potential implications for cardiovascular disease.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {8},\n\tjournal = {HIV medicine},\n\tauthor = {Crane, Heidi M. and Grunfeld, C. and Harrington, R. D. and Kitahata, M. M.},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tpmid = {19486188},\n\tpmcid = {PMC2729358},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Age Factors, Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active, Blood Pressure, Body Fat Distribution, Body Mass Index, CD4 Lymphocyte Count, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, HIV Infections, HIV-Associated Lipodystrophy Syndrome, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index},\n\tpages = {496--503},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Depression Screening Using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Administered on a Touch Screen Computer.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Fann, J. R.; Berry, D. L.; Wolpin, S.; Austin-Seymour, M.; Bush, N.; Halpenny, B.; Lober, W. B.; and McCorkle, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Psycho-oncology, 18(1): 14–22. January 2009.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Depression$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{fann_depression_2009,\n\ttitle = {Depression {Screening} {Using} the {Patient} {Health} {Questionnaire}-9 {Administered} on a {Touch} {Screen} {Computer}},\n\tvolume = {18},\n\tissn = {1057-9249},\n\turl = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610244/},\n\tdoi = {10.1002/pon.1368},\n\tabstract = {PURPOSE\nTo 1) evaluate the feasibility of touch screen depression screening in cancer patients using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), 2) evaluate the construct validity of the PHQ-9 using the touch screen modality, and 3) examine the prevalence and severity of depression using this screening modality.\n\nMETHODS\nThe PHQ-9 was placed in a web-based survey within a study of the clinical impact of computerized symptom and quality of life screening. Patients in medical oncology, radiation oncology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) clinics used the program on a touch screen computer in waiting rooms prior to therapy (T1) and during therapy (T2). Responses of depressed mood or anhedonia (PHQ-2 cardinal depression symptoms) triggered additional items. PHQ-9 scores were provided to the oncology team in real-time.\n\nRESULTS\nAmong 342 patients enrolled, 33 (9.6\\%) at T1 and 69 (20.2\\%) at T2 triggered the full PHQ-9 by endorsing at least one cardinal symptom. Feasibility was high, with at least 97\\% completing the PHQ-2 and at least 96\\% completing the PHQ-9 when triggered and a mean completion time of about 2 minutes. The PHQ-9 had good construct validity. Medical oncology patients had the highest percent of positive screens (12.9\\%) at T1, while HSCT patients had the highest percent (30.5\\%) at T2. Using this method, 21 (6.1\\%) at T1 and 54 (15.8\\%) at T2 of the total sample had moderate to severe depression.\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe PHQ-9 administered on a touch screen computer is feasible and provides valid depression data in a diverse cancer population.},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-01-27},\n\tjournal = {Psycho-oncology},\n\tauthor = {Fann, Jesse R. and Berry, Donna L. and Wolpin, Seth and Austin-Seymour, Mary and Bush, Nigel and Halpenny, Barbara and Lober, William B. and McCorkle, Ruth},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tpmid = {18457335},\n\tpmcid = {PMC2610244},\n\tpages = {14--22},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2008\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Lipoatrophy among HIV-infected patients is associated with higher levels of depression than lipohypertrophy.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Crane, H. M.; Grunfeld, C.; Harrington, R. D.; Uldall, K. K.; Ciechanowski, P. S.; and Kitahata, M. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n HIV medicine, 9(9): 780–786. October 2008.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{crane_lipoatrophy_2008,\n\ttitle = {Lipoatrophy among {HIV}-infected patients is associated with higher levels of depression than lipohypertrophy},\n\tvolume = {9},\n\tissn = {1468-1293},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/j.1468-1293.2008.00631.x},\n\tabstract = {OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the association between body morphology abnormalities and depression, examining lipoatrophy and lipohypertrophy separately.\nMETHODS: An observational cross-sectional study of 250 patients from the University of Washington HIV Cohort was carried out. Patients completed an assessment including measures of depression and body morphology. We used linear regression analysis to examine the association between lipoatrophy or lipohypertrophy and depression. Analysis of variance was used to examine the relationship between mean depression scores and lipoatrophy and lipohypertrophy in 10 body regions.\nRESULTS: Of 250 patients, 76 had lipoatrophy and 128 had lipohypertrophy. Mean depression scores were highest among patients with moderate-to-severe lipoatrophy (16.4), intermediate among those with moderate-to-severe lipohypertrophy (11.7), mild lipohypertrophy (9.9) and mild lipoatrophy (8.5), and lowest among those without body morphology abnormalities (7.7) (P=0.002). After adjustment, mean depression scores for subjects reporting moderate-to-severe lipoatrophy were 9.2 points higher (P{\\textless}0.001), scores for subjects with moderate-to-severe lipohypertrophy were 4.8 points higher (P=0.02), and scores for subjects with mild lipohypertrophy were 2.8 points higher (P=0.03) than those for patients without body morphology abnormalities. Facial lipoatrophy was the body region associated with the most severe depression scores (15.5 vs. 8.9 for controls; P=0.03).\nCONCLUSIONS: In addition to long-term cardiovascular implications, body morphology has a more immediate effect on depression severity.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {9},\n\tjournal = {HIV medicine},\n\tauthor = {Crane, H. M. and Grunfeld, C. and Harrington, R. D. and Uldall, K. K. and Ciechanowski, P. S. and Kitahata, M. M.},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2008},\n\tpmid = {18754804},\n\tpmcid = {PMC2698046},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Analysis of Variance, Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active, Body Fat Distribution, Body Image, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depressive Disorder, Female, HIV Infections, HIV-1, HIV-Associated Lipodystrophy Syndrome, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index, Surveys and Questionnaires},\n\tpages = {780--786},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Acceptability of an Electronic Self-Report Assessment Program for patients with cancer.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wolpin, S.; Berry, D.; Austin-Seymour, M.; Bush, N.; Fann, J. R.; Halpenny, B.; Lober, W. B.; and McCorkle, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Computers, informatics, nursing: CIN, 26(6): 332–338. December 2008.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{wolpin_acceptability_2008,\n\ttitle = {Acceptability of an {Electronic} {Self}-{Report} {Assessment} {Program} for patients with cancer},\n\tvolume = {26},\n\tissn = {1538-9774},\n\tdoi = {10.1097/01.NCN.0000336464.79692.6a},\n\tabstract = {Eliciting symptom and quality of life information from patients is an important component of medical and nursing care processes. Traditionally, this information has been collected with paper and pencil. However, this approach presents several barriers, including delays in receiving information, difficulty in integrating responses with electronic records, and the time required to manually score questionnaires for measurement purposes. One solution that addresses many of these barriers is the adoption of computerized screening for symptom and quality-of-life information. This research explored the acceptability of asking symptom and quality-of-life questions using the Electronic Self Report Assessment-Cancer program on wireless laptops equipped with touch-screen format. Acceptability data were explored with respect to whether any differences may be attributed to demographics and symptom and quality-of-life levels, such as depression and cognitive and emotional functioning. This evaluation used descriptive and univariate statistics to examine data from 342 participants from the ongoing ESRA-C randomized clinical trial. Research participants for the ESRA-C study were recruited from the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, a consortium among the University of Washington Medical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, WA. The sample consisted of 342 adult participants who completed both baseline and follow-up survey sessions. Medical oncology represented the largest recruitment group (45.3\\%), followed by stem cell transplant (34.5\\%) and radiation oncology (20.2\\%). The primary finding was that patients were generally able to use ESRA-C quickly and without difficulty in a real-world clinical setting and that they were overall quite satisfied with the ESRA-C program. Significant differences were found in several acceptability areas with respect to demographics and quality of life measures such as age, sex, and severe distress. This analysis confirms that the ESRA-C application for collecting symptom and quality of life information is easy for patients to use and acceptable across a range of user characteristics. We intend to build on our work by using the survey platform in other modalities while ensuring that the patient's preferences are considered at all times.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tjournal = {Computers, informatics, nursing: CIN},\n\tauthor = {Wolpin, Seth and Berry, Donna and Austin-Seymour, Mary and Bush, Nigel and Fann, Jesse R. and Halpenny, Barbara and Lober, William B. and McCorkle, Ruth},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2008},\n\tpmid = {19047882},\n\tpmcid = {PMC3189855},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Computers, Humans, Neoplasms, Patient Satisfaction, Quality of Life, Self-Assessment},\n\tpages = {332--338},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n Eliciting symptom and quality of life information from patients is an important component of medical and nursing care processes. Traditionally, this information has been collected with paper and pencil. However, this approach presents several barriers, including delays in receiving information, difficulty in integrating responses with electronic records, and the time required to manually score questionnaires for measurement purposes. One solution that addresses many of these barriers is the adoption of computerized screening for symptom and quality-of-life information. This research explored the acceptability of asking symptom and quality-of-life questions using the Electronic Self Report Assessment-Cancer program on wireless laptops equipped with touch-screen format. Acceptability data were explored with respect to whether any differences may be attributed to demographics and symptom and quality-of-life levels, such as depression and cognitive and emotional functioning. This evaluation used descriptive and univariate statistics to examine data from 342 participants from the ongoing ESRA-C randomized clinical trial. Research participants for the ESRA-C study were recruited from the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, a consortium among the University of Washington Medical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, WA. The sample consisted of 342 adult participants who completed both baseline and follow-up survey sessions. Medical oncology represented the largest recruitment group (45.3%), followed by stem cell transplant (34.5%) and radiation oncology (20.2%). The primary finding was that patients were generally able to use ESRA-C quickly and without difficulty in a real-world clinical setting and that they were overall quite satisfied with the ESRA-C program. Significant differences were found in several acceptability areas with respect to demographics and quality of life measures such as age, sex, and severe distress. This analysis confirms that the ESRA-C application for collecting symptom and quality of life information is easy for patients to use and acceptable across a range of user characteristics. We intend to build on our work by using the survey platform in other modalities while ensuring that the patient's preferences are considered at all times.\n

\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2007\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in an HIV clinic setting: the first 100 patients.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Crane, H. M.; Lober, W.; Webster, E.; Harrington, R. D.; Crane, P. K.; Davis, T. E.; and Kitahata, M. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Current HIV research, 5(1): 109–118. January 2007.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{crane_routine_2007,\n\ttitle = {Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in an {HIV} clinic setting: the first 100 patients},\n\tvolume = {5},\n\tissn = {1873-4251},\n\tshorttitle = {Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in an {HIV} clinic setting},\n\tdoi = {10.2174/157016207779316369},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: Information from patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can enhance patient-provider communication and facilitate clinical research. However, there are barriers to collecting PROs within a clinic. Recent technological advances may help overcome these barriers. We examined the feasibility of using a web-based application on tablet PCs with touch screens to collect PROs in a busy, multi-provider, outpatient HIV clinical care setting.\nMETHODS: Patients presenting for routine care were asked to complete a touch-screen-based assessment containing 62 to 111 items depending on patient responses. The assessment included instruments measuring body morphology abnormalities, depression, symptom burden, medication adherence, drug/alcohol/tobacco use, and health-related quality of life.\nRESULTS: Of 136 patients approached to participate in the study, 106 patients (78\\%) completed the assessment, 6 (4\\%) started but did not complete it, and 24 (18\\%) refused. Of those who completed the assessment, the mean age was 48 years, and 29\\% reported a history of injection drug use. The median time to complete the assessment was 12 minutes. The prevalence of lipoatrophy was 51\\%, the prevalence of lipohypertrophy was 69\\%, and the prevalence of moderate or severe depression was 51\\%. We found that 25\\% of those receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy noted missing a dose of their antiretroviral medications in the prior 4 days.\nCONCLUSIONS: Collection of PROs using touch-screen-based, internet technology was feasible in a busy HIV clinic. We found a high prevalence of body morphology abnormalities, depression, and poor adherence. Touch-screen-based collection of PROs is a promising tool to facilitate research and clinical care.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tjournal = {Current HIV research},\n\tauthor = {Crane, Heidi M. and Lober, William and Webster, Eric and Harrington, Robert D. and Crane, Paul K. and Davis, Thomas E. and Kitahata, Mari M.},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2007},\n\tpmid = {17266562},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Aged, CD4 Lymphocyte Count, Female, HIV Infections, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Quality of Life, Treatment Outcome},\n\tpages = {109--118},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2005\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Distributed health assessment and intervention research software framework.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Dockrey, M. R.; Lober, W. B.; Wolpin, S. E.; Rae, L. J.; and Berry, D. L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium,940. 2005.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{dockrey_distributed_2005,\n\ttitle = {Distributed health assessment and intervention research software framework},\n\tissn = {1942-597X},\n\tabstract = {The DHAIR software system is a database-driven, web-based survey platform. It implements the delivery of survey instruments in packaged assessments, creation and editing of those assessments, researcher access to the results of the survey application, and a flexible authorization framework.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tjournal = {AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium},\n\tauthor = {Dockrey, M. R. and Lober, W. B. and Wolpin, S. E. and Rae, L. J. and Berry, D. L.},\n\tyear = {2005},\n\tpmid = {16779227},\n\tpmcid = {PMC1560572},\n\tkeywords = {Data Collection, Health Surveys, Internet, Software},\n\tpages = {940},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2004\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part II: acceptability and usability.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Mullen, K. H.; Berry, D. L.; and Zierler, B. K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Oncology Nursing Forum, 31(5): E84–89. September 2004.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{mullen_computerized_2004,\n\ttitle = {Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part {II}: acceptability and usability},\n\tvolume = {31},\n\tissn = {1538-0688},\n\tshorttitle = {Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part {II}},\n\tdoi = {10.1188/04.ONF.E84-E89},\n\tabstract = {PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine the acceptability and usability of a computerized quality-of-life (QOL) and symptom assessment tool and the graphically displayed QOL and symptom output in an ambulatory radiation oncology clinic.\nDESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional.\nSETTING: Radiation oncology clinic located in an urban university medical center.\nSAMPLE: 45 patients with cancer being evaluated for radiation therapy and 10 clinicians, who submitted 12 surveys.\nMETHODS: Acceptability of the computerized assessment was measured with an online, 16-item, Likert-style survey delivered as 45 patients undergoing radiation therapy completed a 25-item QOL and symptom assessment. Usability of the graphic output was assessed with clinician completion of a four-item paper survey.\nMAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Acceptability and usability of computerized patient assessment.\nFINDINGS: The patient acceptability survey indicated that 70\\% (n = 28) liked computers and 10\\% (n = 4) did not. The program was easy to use for 79\\% (n = 26), easy to understand for 91\\% (n = 30), and enjoyable for 71\\% (n = 24). Seventy-six percent (n = 25) believed that the amount of time needed to complete the computerized survey was acceptable. Sixty-six percent (n = 21) responded that they were satisfied with the program, and none of the participants chose the very dissatisfied response. Eighty-three percent (n = 10) of the clinicians found the graphic output helpful in promoting communication with patients, 75\\% (n = 9) found the output report helpful in identifying appropriate areas of QOL deficits or concerns, and 83\\% (n = 10) indicated that the output helped guide clinical interactions with patients.\nCONCLUSIONS: The computer-based QOL and symptom assessment tool is acceptable to patients, and the graphically displayed QOL and symptom output is useful to radiation oncology nurses and physicians.\nIMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Wider application of computerized patient-generated data can continue in various cancer settings and be tested for clinical and organizational outcomes.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\tjournal = {Oncology Nursing Forum},\n\tauthor = {Mullen, Kristin H. and Berry, Donna L. and Zierler, Brenda K.},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2004},\n\tpmid = {15378105},\n\tkeywords = {Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Aged, Computer Literacy, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Focus Groups, Humans, Internet, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Pain Measurement, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy, Self-Assessment, Software, Software Design, Surveys and Questionnaires, Washington},\n\tpages = {E84--89},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine the acceptability and usability of a computerized quality-of-life (QOL) and symptom assessment tool and the graphically displayed QOL and symptom output in an ambulatory radiation oncology clinic. DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional. SETTING: Radiation oncology clinic located in an urban university medical center. SAMPLE: 45 patients with cancer being evaluated for radiation therapy and 10 clinicians, who submitted 12 surveys. METHODS: Acceptability of the computerized assessment was measured with an online, 16-item, Likert-style survey delivered as 45 patients undergoing radiation therapy completed a 25-item QOL and symptom assessment. Usability of the graphic output was assessed with clinician completion of a four-item paper survey. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Acceptability and usability of computerized patient assessment. FINDINGS: The patient acceptability survey indicated that 70% (n = 28) liked computers and 10% (n = 4) did not. The program was easy to use for 79% (n = 26), easy to understand for 91% (n = 30), and enjoyable for 71% (n = 24). Seventy-six percent (n = 25) believed that the amount of time needed to complete the computerized survey was acceptable. Sixty-six percent (n = 21) responded that they were satisfied with the program, and none of the participants chose the very dissatisfied response. Eighty-three percent (n = 10) of the clinicians found the graphic output helpful in promoting communication with patients, 75% (n = 9) found the output report helpful in identifying appropriate areas of QOL deficits or concerns, and 83% (n = 10) indicated that the output helped guide clinical interactions with patients. CONCLUSIONS: The computer-based QOL and symptom assessment tool is acceptable to patients, and the graphically displayed QOL and symptom output is useful to radiation oncology nurses and physicians. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Wider application of computerized patient-generated data can continue in various cancer settings and be tested for clinical and organizational outcomes.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part II: acceptability and usability.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Mullen, K. H.; Berry, D. L.; and Zierler, B. K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Oncology Nursing Forum, 31(5): E84–89. September 2004.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{mullen_computerized_2004-1,\n\ttitle = {Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part {II}: acceptability and usability},\n\tvolume = {31},\n\tissn = {1538-0688},\n\tshorttitle = {Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part {II}},\n\tdoi = {10.1188/04.ONF.E84-E89},\n\tabstract = {PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine the acceptability and usability of a computerized quality-of-life (QOL) and symptom assessment tool and the graphically displayed QOL and symptom output in an ambulatory radiation oncology clinic.\nDESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional.\nSETTING: Radiation oncology clinic located in an urban university medical center.\nSAMPLE: 45 patients with cancer being evaluated for radiation therapy and 10 clinicians, who submitted 12 surveys.\nMETHODS: Acceptability of the computerized assessment was measured with an online, 16-item, Likert-style survey delivered as 45 patients undergoing radiation therapy completed a 25-item QOL and symptom assessment. Usability of the graphic output was assessed with clinician completion of a four-item paper survey.\nMAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Acceptability and usability of computerized patient assessment.\nFINDINGS: The patient acceptability survey indicated that 70\\% (n = 28) liked computers and 10\\% (n = 4) did not. The program was easy to use for 79\\% (n = 26), easy to understand for 91\\% (n = 30), and enjoyable for 71\\% (n = 24). Seventy-six percent (n = 25) believed that the amount of time needed to complete the computerized survey was acceptable. Sixty-six percent (n = 21) responded that they were satisfied with the program, and none of the participants chose the very dissatisfied response. Eighty-three percent (n = 10) of the clinicians found the graphic output helpful in promoting communication with patients, 75\\% (n = 9) found the output report helpful in identifying appropriate areas of QOL deficits or concerns, and 83\\% (n = 10) indicated that the output helped guide clinical interactions with patients.\nCONCLUSIONS: The computer-based QOL and symptom assessment tool is acceptable to patients, and the graphically displayed QOL and symptom output is useful to radiation oncology nurses and physicians.\nIMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Wider application of computerized patient-generated data can continue in various cancer settings and be tested for clinical and organizational outcomes.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\tjournal = {Oncology Nursing Forum},\n\tauthor = {Mullen, Kristin H. and Berry, Donna L. and Zierler, Brenda K.},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2004},\n\tpmid = {15378105},\n\tkeywords = {Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Aged, Computer Literacy, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Focus Groups, Humans, Internet, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Pain Measurement, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy, Self-Assessment, Software, Software Design, Surveys and Questionnaires, Washington},\n\tpages = {E84--89},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine the acceptability and usability of a computerized quality-of-life (QOL) and symptom assessment tool and the graphically displayed QOL and symptom output in an ambulatory radiation oncology clinic. DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional. SETTING: Radiation oncology clinic located in an urban university medical center. SAMPLE: 45 patients with cancer being evaluated for radiation therapy and 10 clinicians, who submitted 12 surveys. METHODS: Acceptability of the computerized assessment was measured with an online, 16-item, Likert-style survey delivered as 45 patients undergoing radiation therapy completed a 25-item QOL and symptom assessment. Usability of the graphic output was assessed with clinician completion of a four-item paper survey. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Acceptability and usability of computerized patient assessment. FINDINGS: The patient acceptability survey indicated that 70% (n = 28) liked computers and 10% (n = 4) did not. The program was easy to use for 79% (n = 26), easy to understand for 91% (n = 30), and enjoyable for 71% (n = 24). Seventy-six percent (n = 25) believed that the amount of time needed to complete the computerized survey was acceptable. Sixty-six percent (n = 21) responded that they were satisfied with the program, and none of the participants chose the very dissatisfied response. Eighty-three percent (n = 10) of the clinicians found the graphic output helpful in promoting communication with patients, 75% (n = 9) found the output report helpful in identifying appropriate areas of QOL deficits or concerns, and 83% (n = 10) indicated that the output helped guide clinical interactions with patients. CONCLUSIONS: The computer-based QOL and symptom assessment tool is acceptable to patients, and the graphically displayed QOL and symptom output is useful to radiation oncology nurses and physicians. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Wider application of computerized patient-generated data can continue in various cancer settings and be tested for clinical and organizational outcomes.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part I: development and pilot testing.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Berry, D. L.; Trigg, L. J.; Lober, W. B.; Karras, B. T.; Galligan, M. L.; Austin-Seymour, M.; and Martin, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Oncology Nursing Forum, 31(5): E75–83. September 2004.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{berry_computerized_2004,\n\ttitle = {Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part {I}: development and pilot testing},\n\tvolume = {31},\n\tissn = {1538-0688},\n\tshorttitle = {Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part {I}},\n\tdoi = {10.1188/04.ONF.E75-E83},\n\tabstract = {PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To develop and test an innovative computerized symptom and quality-of-life (QOL) assessment for patients with cancer who are evaluated for and treated with radiation therapy.\nDESIGN: Descriptive, longitudinal prototype development and cross-sectional clinical data.\nSETTING: Department of radiation oncology in an urban, academic medical center.\nSAMPLE: 101 outpatients who were evaluated for radiation therapy, able to communicate in English (or through one of many interpreters available at the University of Washington), and competent to understand the study information and give informed consent. Six clinicians caring for the patients in the sample were enrolled.\nMETHODS: Iterative prototype development was conducted using a standing focus group of clinicians. The software was developed based on survey markup language and implemented in a wireless, Web-based format. Patient participants completed the computerized assessment prior to consultation with the radiation physician. Graphical output pages with flagged areas of symptom distress or troublesome QOL issues were made available to consulting physicians and nurses.\nMAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Pain intensity, symptoms, QOL, and demographics.\nINSTRUMENTS: Computerized versions of a 0 to 10 Pain Intensity Numerical Scale (PINS), Symptom Distress Scale, and Short Form-8.\nFINDINGS: Focus group recommendations included clinician priorities of brevity, flexibility, and simplicity for both input interface and output and that the assessment output contain color graphic display. Patient participants included 45 women and 56 men with a mean age of 52.7 years (SD = 13.8). Fewer than half of the participants (40\\%) reported using a computer on a regular basis (weekly or daily). Completion time averaged 7.8 minutes (SD = 3.7). Moderate to high levels of distress were reported more often for fatigue, pain, and emotional issues than for other symptoms or concerns.\nCONCLUSIONS: Computerized assessment of cancer symptoms and QOL is technically possible and feasible in an ambulatory cancer clinic. A wireless, Web-based system facilitates access to results and data entry and retrieval. The symptom and QOL profiles of these patients new to radiation therapy were comparable to other samples of outpatients with cancer.\nIMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The ability to capture an easily interpreted illustration of a patients symptom and QOL experience in less than 10 minutes is a potentially useful adjunct to traditional face-to-face interviewing. Ultimately, electronic patient-generated data could produce automated red flags directed to the most appropriate clinicians (e.g., nurse, pain specialist, social worker, nutritionist) for further evaluation. Such system enhancement could greatly facilitate oncology nurses coordination role in caring for complex patients with cancer.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\tjournal = {Oncology Nursing Forum},\n\tauthor = {Berry, Donna L. and Trigg, Lisa J. and Lober, William B. and Karras, Bryant T. and Galligan, Mary L. and Austin-Seymour, Mary and Martin, Stephanie},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2004},\n\tpmid = {15378104},\n\tkeywords = {Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Aged, Computer Literacy, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Focus Groups, Humans, Internet, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Pain Measurement, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy, Self-Assessment, Software, Software Design, Surveys and Questionnaires, Washington},\n\tpages = {E75--83},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To develop and test an innovative computerized symptom and quality-of-life (QOL) assessment for patients with cancer who are evaluated for and treated with radiation therapy. DESIGN: Descriptive, longitudinal prototype development and cross-sectional clinical data. SETTING: Department of radiation oncology in an urban, academic medical center. SAMPLE: 101 outpatients who were evaluated for radiation therapy, able to communicate in English (or through one of many interpreters available at the University of Washington), and competent to understand the study information and give informed consent. Six clinicians caring for the patients in the sample were enrolled. METHODS: Iterative prototype development was conducted using a standing focus group of clinicians. The software was developed based on survey markup language and implemented in a wireless, Web-based format. Patient participants completed the computerized assessment prior to consultation with the radiation physician. Graphical output pages with flagged areas of symptom distress or troublesome QOL issues were made available to consulting physicians and nurses. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Pain intensity, symptoms, QOL, and demographics. INSTRUMENTS: Computerized versions of a 0 to 10 Pain Intensity Numerical Scale (PINS), Symptom Distress Scale, and Short Form-8. FINDINGS: Focus group recommendations included clinician priorities of brevity, flexibility, and simplicity for both input interface and output and that the assessment output contain color graphic display. Patient participants included 45 women and 56 men with a mean age of 52.7 years (SD = 13.8). Fewer than half of the participants (40%) reported using a computer on a regular basis (weekly or daily). Completion time averaged 7.8 minutes (SD = 3.7). Moderate to high levels of distress were reported more often for fatigue, pain, and emotional issues than for other symptoms or concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized assessment of cancer symptoms and QOL is technically possible and feasible in an ambulatory cancer clinic. A wireless, Web-based system facilitates access to results and data entry and retrieval. The symptom and QOL profiles of these patients new to radiation therapy were comparable to other samples of outpatients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The ability to capture an easily interpreted illustration of a patients symptom and QOL experience in less than 10 minutes is a potentially useful adjunct to traditional face-to-face interviewing. Ultimately, electronic patient-generated data could produce automated red flags directed to the most appropriate clinicians (e.g., nurse, pain specialist, social worker, nutritionist) for further evaluation. Such system enhancement could greatly facilitate oncology nurses coordination role in caring for complex patients with cancer.\n

\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2003\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n The Influence of Personal Factors in the Treatment Decisions of Men with Localized Prostate Cancer [Poster].\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Berry, D.; Ellis, W. J.; Sando, A; and Blasko, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Chicago, 2003. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{berry_influence_2003,\n\taddress = {Chicago},\n\ttitle = {The {Influence} of {Personal} {Factors} in the {Treatment} {Decisions} of {Men} with {Localized} {Prostate} {Cancer} [{Poster}].},\n\tauthor = {Berry, Donna and Ellis, William J. and Sando, A and Blasko, JC},\n\tyear = {2003},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Clinicians communicating with patients experiencing cancer pain.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Berry, D. L.; Wilkie, D. J.; Thomas, C. R.; and Fortner, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Cancer Investigation, 21(3): 374–381. June 2003.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{berry_clinicians_2003,\n\ttitle = {Clinicians communicating with patients experiencing cancer pain},\n\tvolume = {21},\n\tissn = {0735-7907},\n\tdoi = {10.1081/cnv-120018228},\n\tabstract = {PURPOSE: Provider-patient communication deficits are often implicated as barriers to adequate cancer pain relief. The purpose of this study was to describe verbal communication behaviors and interactions between providers and patients reporting cancer pain.\nMETHODS: As part of a multisite clinical trial, we enrolled 17 oncology physician specialists and 84 patient participants who had reported cancer pain or treatment-related pain in the previous week associated with prostate or head and neck cancer. The study baseline clinic visits (N = 84) were audiotaped, transcribed, and entered into non-numerical unstructured data indexing searching and theorizing (NUD.IST) for content analysis. Each text unit in each transcript was coded as to conversation context: pain, additional symptom/side effects, tumor treatment, and/or personal remarks. Clinician questions were coded as either open-ended or closed-ended, clinician interruptions and subject changes were counted, and a measure of verbal dominance was calculated.\nRESULTS: The clinicians spent over half the conversations doing the talking. We calculated a close-ended to open-ended question ratio of 5.8:1. In 55\\% of the visits, the patient with cancer was interrupted by the clinician when the patient attempted to provide information or ask a question. Symptoms/side effects were addressed in practically all visits, whereas sensory pain was addressed in 90\\% of the visits.\nCONCLUSIONS: The clinicians were attentive to daily problems relevant to treatment side effects; however, the results also indicate a pattern of communication during the clinic visit that is typically clinician oriented. The nature of such communication may prevent the patient from sharing significant facts and experiences relevant to cancer pain and thus compromise the quality of pain management.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tjournal = {Cancer Investigation},\n\tauthor = {Berry, Donna L. and Wilkie, Diana J. and Thomas, Charles R. and Fortner, Paige},\n\tmonth = jun,\n\tyear = {2003},\n\tpmid = {12901283},\n\tkeywords = {Communication, Female, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Male, Neoplasms, Pain, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians},\n\tpages = {374--381},\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n