27th Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aims: eRAPID is an online eHealth system for patients to report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severitydependent advice to patients guiding self-management or medical contact. Patient reports are transferred to the electronic patient records for immediate use in patient care. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, clinical care, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL). Methods: A prospective randomized parallel two-arm trial included colorectal, breast or gynecological patients commencing chemotherapy at a UK cancer center. Participants were randomized to usual care plus eRAPID or usual care (UC). eRAPID patients completed weekly symptom reports for 18 weeks. Primary outcome: symptom control at 18 weeks (Functional-Assessment-Cancer-Therapy-Physical Wellbeing, FACT-PWB). Secondary outcomes: cost-effectiveness, clinical process measures (admissions/ chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy(6-item Self-Efficacy Scale) and global QOL(FACT-G). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated measures models were employed. Clinical relevance of any differences was evaluated with responder analysis. Trial registration-ISRCTN88520246. Results: Between Jan 2015 and June 2018, 508/690 eligible patients (73.6%) consented and were randomized (256 eRAPID:252 UC). No significant effect of eRAPID on FACT-PWB was found at 18 weeks (mean difference 0.20;95% CI -0.81, 1.20; p = 0.699). There was a benefit at 6 and 12 weeks (1.08; 95% CI 0.12, 2.05; p = 0.028 & 1.01; 95% CI 0.05, 1.98; p = 0.039). Responder analysis: eRAPID patients experienced less clinically relevant symptom deterioration at 6 and 12 weeks (deterioration at 12 weeks was 47.5% in eRAPID patients vs 56.3% UC). There were no differences for admissions/chemotherapy delivery. eRAPID patients reported better self-efficacy (p = 0.007) at 18 weeks, and better QOL EQ5D-VAS scores at 12 (p = 0.030) and 18 (p = 0.009) weeks. Intervention fidelity: Patient adherence to weekly symptom reporting varied between 71.8% in week 1 to 58.1% week 18 (average 64.7%). 3314 online reports were completed, median per patient 14.0 (range 0-117); emergency alerts were activated in 29/3314 cases (0.9%), self-management advice 2714/3314 (81.9%). Post hoc analyses showed high patient adherence was associated with clinician's use of the data, high baseline FACT-PWB and older age. High adherence patients had better FACT-PWB scores at 12 weeks. Conclusion: eRAPID improved symptom control early at 6 and 12 weeks during chemotherapy and supported patient self-efficacy, without increasing hospital workload. Engaging both patients and clinicians is important for the intervention success.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».