Skip to content

Feasibility Testing of Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)

Feasibility Testing of Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04492007
Acronym
PRISMS
Enrollment
46
Registered
2020-07-30
Start date
2020-11-02
Completion date
2021-12-20
Last updated
2025-02-03

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Bladder Cancer, Cervical Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Uterine Cancer

Keywords

ostomy (colostomy, urostomy, and ileostomy), symptom, self-management, caregiving, family research, telehealth, self-efficacy, quality of life, post-treatment care transition

Brief summary

This is a proof-of-concept pilot randomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of the innovative Patient-Reported Outcomes-Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) to enhance personalized supportive care for cancer patients and caregivers during post-treatment care transition.

Detailed description

In this proof-of-concept study, our multidisciplinary team will conduct a pilot randomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of the innovative Patient-Reported Outcomes-Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) to enhance personalized supportive care for cancer patients and caregivers during post-treatment care transition. We will randomly assign 21 cancer patients with newly created ostomies for cancer treatment with curative intent and their primary caregivers to the PRISMS or usual care groups (21 patient-caregiver dyads, a total of 42 individuals). PRISMS is defined as a personalized psychoeducational website including monitoring and personal feedback. We will conduct pre- and post-assessments of QOL and PRO (symptoms) at baseline upon enrollment and 2 months later.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALPatient-Reported Outcomes-Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)

Participants will receive personalized self-care information and guidance based on their symptoms and signs of complications (e.g., skin infection, fatigue) from the web-based telehealth PRISMS program. They will also have access through this website a peer support online forum that is moderated by a research nurse as well as professional support through videoconferencing/telephone from the research nurse and also their healthcare providers at the hospital(s) if they experience moderate to severe symptoms and/or abnormal sign (e.g., body temperature is greater than 98.6 C

Sponsors

National Cancer Institute (NCI)
CollaboratorNIH
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
CollaboratorNIH
UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
TRIPLE (Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 99 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Patients must: * have been surgically treated for colorectal, bladder, ovarian, cervical, or uterine cancer with curative intent; * be within one month of hospital discharge of a newly created ostomy with curative intent; * be able to read and speak English; * be 18 years or older; * have a caregiver who is willing to participate in the study; Caregivers must: * be 18 years or older; * be able to read and speak English; * be identified as the primary caregiver by the patient; * have not themselves been diagnosed with cancer or received cancer treatment during the study (to ensure that patients and caregivers focus their efforts on care of the patient).

Exclusion criteria

Patients and their caregivers will be excluded if they: * are unable to read, speak, or understand English; * have more than one type of ostomy; * have other cancer diagnosis (excluding non-melanomatous skin cancer); or * have cognitive impairment (assessed by the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire).

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Enrollment NumberBaselineThe enrollment rate is defined as the number of potentially eligible couples (dyads) who have consented to participate in the study. 1 Dyad = 1 participant + their caregiver. Potentially eligible dyads (subjects and their caregivers) were approached and informed about the study. then the number of dyads who consented and completed.
Number of Potentially Eligible Dyads Participants Actually Enrolled in the StudyBaseline, after consentPotentially Eligible Dyads Participants Actually Enrolled in the Study will be evaluated by the number of dyads who successfully consented and completed the baseline survey among all people approached for the study. 1 Dyad = 1 participant + their caregiver.
Number of Dyads Remained in the Study and Completed the Post-Intervention Follow-Up Survey.Up to 3 months (2-month follow up survey)The number of dyad Participants Enrolled who Remained in the Study and Completed the Post-Intervention Follow-Up Survey was assessed by the number of enrolled dyad participants who completed the 2-month follow-up survey at the end of the study period.
Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)Up to 2 months (Follow up survey)Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) evaluates three aspects: General, content, and navigation, contains 19 items on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree. The score for each aspect was calculated as the sum of the scores from all items in this aspect. The scores ranged between 5 and 25 for General and Content, and the Navigation score ranged between 9 and 45. The higher score of the specific aspect that patients and their caregivers reported indicates the better usability of the aspect. This survey was offered separately at the follow-up visit to patients and their caregivers. Participants who completed at least 80.00% of the questions were included in the analysis. Usual Care and Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) group scores were compared.
Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program2-month followup surveyThe satisfaction survey evaluates satisfaction with various aspects, contains 9 items on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 to 5, and higher scores reflect better satisfaction. Questions: Q1. The amount of time to review the program every time. Q2. Ease of navigating. Q3. Information I received. Q4. Quality of the information I received. Q5. The program has increased my knowledge about managing my symptoms and complications. Q6. The program has improved how I manage my symptoms and complications. Q7. The program has improved how I communicate with my family about sensitive topics related to my cancer care. Q8. The time and effort took me to complete. Q9. My knowledge about how my cancer has affected my partner and our relationship was improved. This survey was offered at the follow-up visit to patients and their caregivers separately. More than 80.00% of the questions answered were included in the analysis. The mean score for each question for Usual Care and PRISMS were compared.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Difference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G).baseline , 2 monthsQuality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) at baseline and follow-up visit to patients and their caregivers separately. Change from baseline is the post-baseline value minus the Baseline value. FACT-G is a 27-item survey that assesses physical, social/family, emotional, and functional well-being on a 5-point Likert scale, with 0 indicating not at all and 4 indicating very much in response to item questions. The total FACT-G score is calculated as the sum of four sub-scores including physical, social/family, emotional, and functional well-being. Total scores range between 0-108. Higher scores indicated better well-being. It has also demonstrated sensitivity to change over time Mean FACT-G difference between baseline and 2 months were presented.
Change in Sleep Among Caregivers.Baseline, 2 monthsChange in Sleep among caregivers. was assessed by the 22-item version of the Zarit Burden Interview is a caregiver self-reported instrument. It is used to assess caregiving burden change among caregivers from Baseline (T1) to T2 (2 months post-T1). Each item on the interview is a statement that the caregiver is asked to endorse using a 5-point scale. Response options range from 0 (Never) to 4 (Nearly Always). Higher scores reflect more severe burden, 0-21: no to mild burden; 21-40: mild to moderate burden; 41-60: moderate to severe burden; ≥ 61: severe burden. The score value ranges between 0-88.
Difference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7aBaseline and 2 monthsDifference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a used to examine the change in anxiety among patients and their caregivers separately, from Baseline to follow up (2 months). For all PROMS measurements, total raw scores are translated into T scores for each participant, where the T score rescales the raw score into a standardized T score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. The anxiety sub-scale of the PROMIS item bank measures the extent to which participants experience anxiety symptoms over the past 7 days using a 5-point Likert scale (1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always) with the total scores range from 36.3 to 82.7 with higher scores reflect higher anxiety.
Difference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8bBaseline, 2 monthsChange of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8b will be assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8b. It is used to measure the change in depression scores among patients and their partners from Baseline (T1) to T2 (2 months post-T1). Required by the PROMIS scoring instrument, for all PROMS measurements, total raw scores are translated into T scores for each participant, where the T score rescales the raw score into a standardized T score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. The depression sub-scale of the PROMIS item bank measures the extent to which participants experience depressive symptoms in the past 7 days using a 5-point Likert scale (1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always) with the total scores range from 24.7 to 63.5 with higher scores indicate greater depressive symptoms.
Difference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6bBaseline, 2 monthsChange Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b will be assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b. It is used to measure the change in Pain. It was offered to patients and their caregivers separately. Required by the PROMIS scoring instrument, for all PROMS measurements, total raw scores are translated into T scores for each participant, where the T score rescales the raw score into a standardized T score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. The pain measures the extent to which patients experience problems with pain over the past 7 days using a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores reflect greater Pain Interference. The score value ranges between 41-78.3.
Difference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7aBaseline, 2 monthsPROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a is used to measure the change in Fatigue among patients and their caregivers separately, from Baseline (T1) to T2 (2 months post-T1). Required by the PROMIS scoring instrument, for all PROMS measurements, total raw scores are translated into T scores for each participant, where the T score rescales the raw score into a standardized T score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. The fatigue scale measures the extent to which patients and their partners experience problems with fatigue over the past 7 days using a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores reflect greater fatigue. Score value ranges between 29.4 - 83.2.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Participants were enrolled in the study between 11/02/2020 - 8/10/2021 at one cancer center in North Carolina.

Pre-assignment details

In total 46 participants, 23 patients, and 23 patients' caregivers were started to the study. Patients and their caregivers were graded as dyed; 16 dyed in the PRISM arm and 7 dyed in the control arm were enrolled in the study.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Usual Care
Participants assigned to this arm will receive the standard of care that is provided to all patients.
7
Caregiver-Usual Care
The primary caregiver of the participants assigned to this arm will receive the standard of care that is provided to all patients.
7
PRISMS
Participants will receive personalized self-care information and guidance based on their symptoms and signs of complications from the web-based telehealth PRISMS program. They will also have access through this website a peer support online forum that is moderated by a research nurse as well as professional support through video conferencing/telephone from the research nurse and also their healthcare providers at the hospital(s).
16
Caregiver-PRISMS
The primary caregiver of the participants assigned to receive eceive personalized self-care information and guidance based on their symptoms and signs of complications from the web-based telehealth PRISMS program. They will also have access through this website a peer support online forum that is moderated by a research nurse as well as professional support through video conferencing/telephone from the research nurse and also their healthcare providers at the hospital(s).
16
Total46

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002FG003
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up1122
Overall StudyProtocol Violation1111
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject0011

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicUsual CareTotalCaregiver-PRISMSPRISMSCaregiver-Usual Care
Age, Continuous57.71 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 25.81
51.04 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.72
48.06 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.3
56.81 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.73
38.00 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 27.47
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
7 Participants46 Participants16 Participants16 Participants7 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
2 Participants8 Participants2 Participants2 Participants2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants2 Participants1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
5 Participants35 Participants13 Participants12 Participants5 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
7 participants46 participants16 participants16 participants7 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
2 Participants24 Participants11 Participants4 Participants7 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
5 Participants22 Participants5 Participants12 Participants0 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 00 / 00 / 00 / 0
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 00 / 00 / 00 / 0
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 00 / 00 / 00 / 0

Outcome results

Primary

Enrollment Number

The enrollment rate is defined as the number of potentially eligible couples (dyads) who have consented to participate in the study. 1 Dyad = 1 participant + their caregiver. Potentially eligible dyads (subjects and their caregivers) were approached and informed about the study. then the number of dyads who consented and completed.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: Potentially eligible dyads (subjects and their caregivers) were approached and informed about the study. A total of 29 dyads were approached and were eligible and 25 dyads were consented.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyEnrollment Number25 Number of dyad participants
Primary

Number of Dyads Remained in the Study and Completed the Post-Intervention Follow-Up Survey.

The number of dyad Participants Enrolled who Remained in the Study and Completed the Post-Intervention Follow-Up Survey was assessed by the number of enrolled dyad participants who completed the 2-month follow-up survey at the end of the study period.

Time frame: Up to 3 months (2-month follow up survey)

Population: The number of dyads who started to study completed baseline and post-intervention survey. Twenty-five dyads consented, and 23 of them completed the baseline survey.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyNumber of Dyads Remained in the Study and Completed the Post-Intervention Follow-Up Survey.17 Number of dyad participants
Primary

Number of Potentially Eligible Dyads Participants Actually Enrolled in the Study

Potentially Eligible Dyads Participants Actually Enrolled in the Study will be evaluated by the number of dyads who successfully consented and completed the baseline survey among all people approached for the study. 1 Dyad = 1 participant + their caregiver.

Time frame: Baseline, after consent

Population: 25 dyads were consented.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyNumber of Potentially Eligible Dyads Participants Actually Enrolled in the Study23 Number of dyad participants
Primary

Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program

The satisfaction survey evaluates satisfaction with various aspects, contains 9 items on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 to 5, and higher scores reflect better satisfaction. Questions: Q1. The amount of time to review the program every time. Q2. Ease of navigating. Q3. Information I received. Q4. Quality of the information I received. Q5. The program has increased my knowledge about managing my symptoms and complications. Q6. The program has improved how I manage my symptoms and complications. Q7. The program has improved how I communicate with my family about sensitive topics related to my cancer care. Q8. The time and effort took me to complete. Q9. My knowledge about how my cancer has affected my partner and our relationship was improved. This survey was offered at the follow-up visit to patients and their caregivers separately. More than 80.00% of the questions answered were included in the analysis. The mean score for each question for Usual Care and PRISMS were compared.

Time frame: 2-month followup survey

Population: Thirty -four participants (17 patients and 17 caregivers) who completed the survey questionnaires were included.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudySatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ73.40 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.89
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudySatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ63.60 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.89
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudySatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ93.80 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.84
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudySatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ43.60 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.89
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudySatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ33.40 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.14
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudySatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ23.60 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.34
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudySatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ83.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.48
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudySatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ53.80 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudySatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ13.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Usual Care- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ53.60 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.14
Usual Care- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ73.60 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.14
Usual Care- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ63.40 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.52
Usual Care- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ24.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.84
Usual Care- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ13.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.48
Usual Care- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ34.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Usual Care- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ93.60 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.67
Usual Care- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ82.40 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.14
Usual Care- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ44.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
PRISMS PatientsSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ54.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
PRISMS PatientsSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ14.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.79
PRISMS PatientsSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ24.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
PRISMS PatientsSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ34.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.95
PRISMS PatientsSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ44.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
PRISMS PatientsSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ63.75 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.22
PRISMS PatientsSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ73.17 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
PRISMS PatientsSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ83.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.19
PRISMS PatientsSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ93.64 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.29
PRISMS- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ74.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.95
PRISMS- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ44 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.85
PRISMS- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ33.92 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
PRISMS- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ93.92 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.79
PRISMS- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ83.64 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.12
PRISMS- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ24 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.95
PRISMS- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ64.17 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.72
PRISMS- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ54.17 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.72
PRISMS- CaregiversSatisfaction With the PRISMS ProgramQ13.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.72
Primary

Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)

Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) evaluates three aspects: General, content, and navigation, contains 19 items on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree. The score for each aspect was calculated as the sum of the scores from all items in this aspect. The scores ranged between 5 and 25 for General and Content, and the Navigation score ranged between 9 and 45. The higher score of the specific aspect that patients and their caregivers reported indicates the better usability of the aspect. This survey was offered separately at the follow-up visit to patients and their caregivers. Participants who completed at least 80.00% of the questions were included in the analysis. Usual Care and Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) group scores were compared.

Time frame: Up to 2 months (Follow up survey)

Population: Thirty -four participants (17 patients and 17 caregivers) who completed the survey questionnaires were included.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)general aspect17.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.65
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)navigation aspect35.69 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.46
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)content aspect19.75 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.99
Usual Care- CaregiversUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)general aspect17.50 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.07
Usual Care- CaregiversUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)navigation aspect37.45 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.24
Usual Care- CaregiversUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)content aspect18.50 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.11
PRISMS PatientsUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)content aspect20.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.41
PRISMS PatientsUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)general aspect20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.66
PRISMS PatientsUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)navigation aspect38.16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.37
PRISMS- CaregiversUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)general aspect20.36 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
PRISMS- CaregiversUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)navigation aspect30.75 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.89
PRISMS- CaregiversUsability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS)content aspect21.36 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.83
Secondary

Change in Sleep Among Caregivers.

Change in Sleep among caregivers. was assessed by the 22-item version of the Zarit Burden Interview is a caregiver self-reported instrument. It is used to assess caregiving burden change among caregivers from Baseline (T1) to T2 (2 months post-T1). Each item on the interview is a statement that the caregiver is asked to endorse using a 5-point scale. Response options range from 0 (Never) to 4 (Nearly Always). Higher scores reflect more severe burden, 0-21: no to mild burden; 21-40: mild to moderate burden; 41-60: moderate to severe burden; ≥ 61: severe burden. The score value ranges between 0-88.

Time frame: Baseline, 2 months

Population: Patients' caregivers participants responded to the survey questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyChange in Sleep Among Caregivers.16.49 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 29.84
Usual Care- CaregiversChange in Sleep Among Caregivers.0.40 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.15
Secondary

Difference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a

Difference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a used to examine the change in anxiety among patients and their caregivers separately, from Baseline to follow up (2 months). For all PROMS measurements, total raw scores are translated into T scores for each participant, where the T score rescales the raw score into a standardized T score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. The anxiety sub-scale of the PROMIS item bank measures the extent to which participants experience anxiety symptoms over the past 7 days using a 5-point Likert scale (1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always) with the total scores range from 36.3 to 82.7 with higher scores reflect higher anxiety.

Time frame: Baseline and 2 months

Population: Thirty -four participants (17 patients and 17 caregivers) who completed the survey questionnaires were included.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyDifference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a6.56 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.55
Usual Care- CaregiversDifference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a10.02 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.48
PRISMS PatientsDifference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a13.42 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.59
PRISMS- CaregiversDifference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a13.22 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.62
Secondary

Difference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8b

Change of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8b will be assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8b. It is used to measure the change in depression scores among patients and their partners from Baseline (T1) to T2 (2 months post-T1). Required by the PROMIS scoring instrument, for all PROMS measurements, total raw scores are translated into T scores for each participant, where the T score rescales the raw score into a standardized T score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. The depression sub-scale of the PROMIS item bank measures the extent to which participants experience depressive symptoms in the past 7 days using a 5-point Likert scale (1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always) with the total scores range from 24.7 to 63.5 with higher scores indicate greater depressive symptoms.

Time frame: Baseline, 2 months

Population: Participants who completed the survey

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyDifference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8bPatients14.77 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.83
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyDifference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8bPatients' caregiver20.94 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.6
Usual Care- CaregiversDifference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8bPatients8.55 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.76
Usual Care- CaregiversDifference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8bPatients' caregiver11.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.63
Secondary

Difference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a

PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a is used to measure the change in Fatigue among patients and their caregivers separately, from Baseline (T1) to T2 (2 months post-T1). Required by the PROMIS scoring instrument, for all PROMS measurements, total raw scores are translated into T scores for each participant, where the T score rescales the raw score into a standardized T score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. The fatigue scale measures the extent to which patients and their partners experience problems with fatigue over the past 7 days using a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores reflect greater fatigue. Score value ranges between 29.4 - 83.2.

Time frame: Baseline, 2 months

Population: Thirty -four participants (17 patients and 17 caregivers) who completed the survey questionnaires were included.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyDifference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a8.73 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 29.94
Usual Care- CaregiversDifference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a46.19 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.18
PRISMS PatientsDifference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a10.86 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.48
PRISMS- CaregiversDifference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a16.28 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.76
Secondary

Difference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G).

Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) at baseline and follow-up visit to patients and their caregivers separately. Change from baseline is the post-baseline value minus the Baseline value. FACT-G is a 27-item survey that assesses physical, social/family, emotional, and functional well-being on a 5-point Likert scale, with 0 indicating not at all and 4 indicating very much in response to item questions. The total FACT-G score is calculated as the sum of four sub-scores including physical, social/family, emotional, and functional well-being. Total scores range between 0-108. Higher scores indicated better well-being. It has also demonstrated sensitivity to change over time Mean FACT-G difference between baseline and 2 months were presented.

Time frame: baseline , 2 months

Population: Thirty -four participants (17 patients and 17 caregivers) who completed the survey questionnaires were included.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyDifference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G).18.43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.59
Usual Care- CaregiversDifference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G).13.57 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.64
PRISMS PatientsDifference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G).7.41 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.98
PRISMS- CaregiversDifference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G).9.53 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.86
Secondary

Difference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b

Change Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b will be assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b. It is used to measure the change in Pain. It was offered to patients and their caregivers separately. Required by the PROMIS scoring instrument, for all PROMS measurements, total raw scores are translated into T scores for each participant, where the T score rescales the raw score into a standardized T score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. The pain measures the extent to which patients experience problems with pain over the past 7 days using a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores reflect greater Pain Interference. The score value ranges between 41-78.3.

Time frame: Baseline, 2 months

Population: Thirty -four participants (17 patients and 17 caregivers) who completed the survey questionnaires were included.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The StudyDifference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b7.28 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13
Usual Care- CaregiversDifference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b24.85 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.28
PRISMS PatientsDifference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b13.02 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.39
PRISMS- CaregiversDifference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b7.72 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.6

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 9, 2026