27th Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".