Examining the Impact of a Web-Based Intervention to Promote Patient Activation in Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Assessment and Management

  • Robert Knoerl
  • Deborah Lee
  • James Yang
  • Celia Bridges
  • Grace Kanzawa-Lee
  • G. Lita Smith
  • Ellen M. Lavoie Smith
Article
  • 130 Downloads

Abstract

Lack of activation in self-care can compromise a patient’s ability to monitor and manage cancer treatment-related side effects, such as chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). The web-based Carevive® Care Planning System (CPS) was developed to promote evidence-based symptom assessment and treatment by enhancing patients’ involvement in their own care. The purpose of this single-arm, pre-test/post-test, prospective study was to examine whether the CPS can promote patient activation in CIPN symptom assessment and management. Seventy-five women with breast cancer receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy were recruited from a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Using standardized neuropathy measures embedded within the CPS, patients reported their CIPN symptoms over three consecutive clinical visits and completed the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) at the first and third visits. Mean changes in PAM scores between visits were compared using repeated measure analysis of covariance, adjusting for age. At baseline, patients were diagnosed with cancer within the past year (94.7%), highly activated (85% Level III/IV), and had a mean age of 51.3. PAM scores improved significantly from 67.15 (SD = 13.5; range = 47–100) at visit one to 69.29 (SD = 16.18; range = 47–100) (p = 0.02) (n = 62) at visit three. However, patients perceived the CPS to be of minimal value because it solely focused on CIPN and, for many, CIPN was not severe enough to motivate them to seek out symptom management information. Further research is needed to assess the utility of the CPS in promoting activation in the assessment and management of varying cancer treatment-related symptoms.

Keywords

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy Technology assessment Peripheral nervous system disease/chemically induced Cancer symptom management Patient activation 

References

  1. 1.
    Hershman DL, Lacchetti C, Dworkin RH et al (2014) Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 32(18):1941–1967. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.54.0914 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mols F, Beijers T, Vreugdenhil G, van de Poll-Franse L (2014) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and its association with quality of life: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 22(8):2261–2269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Park SB, Goldstein D, Krishnan AV et al (2013) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: a critical analysis. CA Cancer J Clin 63(6):419–437. doi:10.3322/caac.21204 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tanay MAL, Armes J, Ream E (2016) The experience of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in adult cancer patients: a qualitative thematic synthesis. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). doi:10.1111/ecc.12443 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith EML, Bakitas MA, Homel P et al (2009) Using quality improvement methodology to improve neuropathic pain screening and assessment in patients with cancer. J Cancer Educ 24(2):135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith EML, Campbell G, Tofthagen C et al (2014) Nursing knowledge, practice patterns, and learning preferences regarding chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Oncol Nurs Forum 41(6):669–679. doi:10.1188/14.ONF.669-679 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Visovsky C, Haas M, Faiman B et al (2012) Nurse self-evaluation of assessment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in patients with cancer. J Adv Pract Oncol 3(5):319–325 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25031961. Accessed December 3, 2016PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greene J, Hibbard JH, Sacks R, Overton V (2013) When seeing the same physician, highly activated patients have better care experiences than less activated patients. Health Aff (Millwood). 32(7):1299–1305. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1409 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M (2004) Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res 39(4 Pt 1):1005–1026. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hibbard JH, Greene J (2013) What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 32(2):207–214. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruland CM, Andersen T, Jeneson A et al (2013) Effects of an internet support system to assist cancer patients in reducing symptom distress: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Nurs 36(1):6–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Solomon M, Wagner SL, Goes J (2012) Effects of a Web-based intervention for adults with chronic conditions on patient activation: online randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 14(1):e32. doi:10.2196/jmir.1924 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riippa I, Linna M, Rönkkö I (2014) The effect of a patient portal with electronic messaging on patient activation among chronically ill patients: controlled before-and-after study. J Med Internet Res 16(11):e257. doi:10.2196/jmir.3462 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knoerl R, Dudley W, Smith G, Bridges C, Kanzawa G, Smith EML (2016) Pilot testing a Web-based system for the assessment and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Comput Informatics, Nurs. doi:10.1097/CIN.0000000000000320 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, et al. 2014. Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst 106(9). doi:10.1093/jnci/dju244
  16. 16.
    Postma TJ, Aaronson NK, Heimans JJ et al (2005) The development of an EORTC quality of life questionnaire to assess chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: the QLQ-CIPN20. Eur J Cancer 41(8):1135–1139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M (2005) Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv Res 40(6 Pt 1):1918–1930. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prey JE, Qian M, Restaino S et al (2016) Reliability and validity of the patient activation measure in hospitalized patients. Patient Educ Couns. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.06.029 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brooke J (1996) A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry 189(194):4–7Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lewis J, Sauro J (2009) The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: Kurosu M (ed) Human centered design, vol 5619. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 94–103. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tariman JD, Berry DL, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Schepp K (2011) Validation and testing of the Acceptability E-scale for Web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care. Appl Nurs Res 24(1):53–58. doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2009.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R Development Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org. Accessed 9 Jan 2017
  23. 23.
    Smith SG, Pandit A, Rush SR, Wolf MS, Simon CJ (2016) The role of patient activation in preferences for shared decision making: results from a National Survey of U.S. adults. J Health Commun 21(1):67–75. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1033115 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bos-Touwen I, Schuurmans M, Monninkhof EM et al (2015) Patient and disease characteristics associated with activation for self-management in patients with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure and chronic renal disease: a cross-sectional survey study. Wu W-CH, ed. PLoS One 10(5):e0126400. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126400 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rogers E (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association for Cancer Education 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Michigan School of NursingAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State University College of NursingEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.University of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations