Bladder Cancer, Cervical Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Uterine Cancer
Conditions
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
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
Study design
Eligibility
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
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Enrollment Number | Baseline | 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. |
| Number of Potentially Eligible Dyads Participants Actually Enrolled in the Study | Baseline, after consent | 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. |
| 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 Program | 2-month followup survey | 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. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Difference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). | baseline , 2 months | 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. |
| Change in Sleep Among Caregivers. | Baseline, 2 months | 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. |
| Difference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a | Baseline and 2 months | 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. |
| Difference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8b | Baseline, 2 months | 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. |
| Difference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b | Baseline, 2 months | 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. |
| Difference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a | Baseline, 2 months | 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. |
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
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| Total | 46 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 | FG002 | FG003 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Overall Study | Protocol Violation | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Usual Care | Total | Caregiver-PRISMS | PRISMS | Caregiver-Usual Care |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 57.71 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 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 7 Participants | 46 Participants | 16 Participants | 16 Participants | 7 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 2 Participants | 8 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 5 Participants | 35 Participants | 13 Participants | 12 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 7 participants | 46 participants | 16 participants | 16 participants | 7 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 2 Participants | 24 Participants | 11 Participants | 4 Participants | 7 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 5 Participants | 22 Participants | 5 Participants | 12 Participants | 0 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
Outcome results
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Enrollment Number | 25 Number of dyad participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Number of Dyads Remained in the Study and Completed the Post-Intervention Follow-Up Survey. | 17 Number of dyad participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Number of Potentially Eligible Dyads Participants Actually Enrolled in the Study | 23 Number of dyad participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q7 | 3.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.89 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q6 | 3.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.89 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q9 | 3.80 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.84 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q4 | 3.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.89 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q3 | 3.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.14 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q2 | 3.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.34 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q8 | 3.20 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.48 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q5 | 3.80 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q1 | 3.20 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q5 | 3.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.14 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q7 | 3.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.14 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q6 | 3.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.52 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q2 | 4.20 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.84 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q1 | 3.20 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.48 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q3 | 4.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q9 | 3.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.67 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q8 | 2.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.14 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q4 | 4.20 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| PRISMS Patients | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q5 | 4.08 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| PRISMS Patients | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q1 | 4.08 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.79 |
| PRISMS Patients | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q2 | 4.08 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| PRISMS Patients | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q3 | 4.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.95 |
| PRISMS Patients | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q4 | 4.08 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| PRISMS Patients | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q6 | 3.75 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.22 |
| PRISMS Patients | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q7 | 3.17 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.4 |
| PRISMS Patients | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q8 | 3.83 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.19 |
| PRISMS Patients | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q9 | 3.64 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.29 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q7 | 4.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.95 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q4 | 4 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.85 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q3 | 3.92 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q9 | 3.92 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.79 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q8 | 3.64 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.12 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q2 | 4 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.95 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q6 | 4.17 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.72 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q5 | 4.17 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.72 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Satisfaction With the PRISMS Program | Q1 | 3.83 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.72 |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | general aspect | 17.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.65 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | navigation aspect | 35.69 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.46 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | content aspect | 19.75 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.99 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | general aspect | 17.50 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.07 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | navigation aspect | 37.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.24 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | content aspect | 18.50 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.11 |
| PRISMS Patients | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | content aspect | 20.71 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.41 |
| PRISMS Patients | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | general aspect | 20 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.66 |
| PRISMS Patients | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | navigation aspect | 38.16 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.37 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | general aspect | 20.36 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.2 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | navigation aspect | 30.75 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.89 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Usability of Reported Outcomes - Patient Reported Outcomes - Informed Symptom Management System (PRISMS) | content aspect | 21.36 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.83 |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Change in Sleep Among Caregivers. | 16.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.84 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Change in Sleep Among Caregivers. | 0.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 11.15 |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Difference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a | 6.56 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.55 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Difference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a | 10.02 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.48 |
| PRISMS Patients | Difference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a | 13.42 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.59 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Difference of Anxiety Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form 7a | 13.22 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.62 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Difference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8b | Patients | 14.77 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.83 |
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Difference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8b | Patients' caregiver | 20.94 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.6 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Difference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8b | Patients | 8.55 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.76 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Difference of Depression Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS-Emotional Distress-Depression Short From 8b | Patients' caregiver | 11.08 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.63 |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Difference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a | 8.73 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.94 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Difference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a | 46.19 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.18 |
| PRISMS Patients | Difference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a | 10.86 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.48 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Difference of Fatigue Change Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Fatigue -Short Form 7a | 16.28 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.76 |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Difference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). | 18.43 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.59 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Difference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). | 13.57 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.64 |
| PRISMS Patients | Difference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). | 7.41 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.98 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Difference of Quality of Life Change Over Time as Assessed by The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). | 9.53 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.86 |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potentially Eligible Dyads Recruited Into The Study | Difference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b | 7.28 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13 |
| Usual Care- Caregivers | Difference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b | 24.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.28 |
| PRISMS Patients | Difference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b | 13.02 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.39 |
| PRISMS- Caregivers | Difference Pain Score Over Time as Assessed by PROMIS Pain Interference - Short Form 6b | 7.72 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.6 |