An application (ePRO) -based patient reported outcomes of quality of life from an innovative cancer care delivery model.

Dinesh Pendharkar Sarvodaya Cancer Institute, Faridabad, India info_outline Dinesh Pendharkar, Chandramauli Tripathi, Ajay Parmar, Mohammad Imam Ather, Ashok Kumar Nagar, Abhishek Raj, Vishnu Hari

Authors Dinesh Pendharkar Sarvodaya Cancer Institute, Faridabad, India info_outline Dinesh Pendharkar, Chandramauli Tripathi, Ajay Parmar, Mohammad Imam Ather, Ashok Kumar Nagar, Abhishek Raj, Vishnu Hari Organizations Sarvodaya Cancer Institute, Faridabad, India, District Hospital, Ujjain, India, Civil Hospital Junagadh Gujrat, Junagadh, India, Sarvodaya Hospital and Research Center, Faridabad, India, District Hospital, Jhalawar, India, Sarvodaya Hospital, New Delhi, India Abstract Disclosures Research Funding No funding sources reported Background: With the accessibility of smartphones, it has become possible to develop applications for patient-reported outcomes. Quality of life (QoL) is an important measure in oncology research. We developed a phone application that could use any standardized form to be filled in by the patient. Here, we report using the EORTC questionnaire, QLQ-C30, built into the application as a form for data collection from our ongoing district cancer care program, which offers support at government district hospitals in India using an alternate oncology work force. Methods: An application (ePRO) was created, which allows one doctor administrator to follow the patients. Once the application is downloaded, the patient opens the QoL questionnaire (QLQ-C30), built into the application, and completes it using a smartphone. The researcher downloaded the data in Excel format and analyzed it. The application was attempted at a tertiary cancer center and a public hospital district cancer unit. A cross-sectional study was conducted over six months in 2023.The data were analyzed using SPSS version 24. Results: The application was downloaded and activated on the smartphones of 441 patients. Patients completed the form available through the application. Of all the respondents, 229 (51.9%) were male and 212 (48.1%) were female. The mean QoL of the tertiary hospital was 69.29, with a standard deviation (SD) of 18.98.The QoL scores were 50.94 (SD 23.50) in district hospital 1 and 77.01 (SD 17.35) in district hospital 2. The difference between one district and the other was significant (p < 0.001). The symptom scale scores varied between district hospitals and other hospitals. Conclusions: This presentation serves two purposes: to validate a new patient-reported outcome application and to provide data on QoL from peripheral centers compared with tertiary centers. The use of technology is feasible and can help gather patient-reported outcomes easily. There appears to be a difference in the quality of life of patients from different geographical locations. QoL Functional/Symptom scale score. Scale Total Group (441) Tertiary Center (229) District Hospital 1 (170) District Hospital 2 (42) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Physical functioning 60.07 25.97 63.26 24.76 51.92 46.66 75.71 25.74 Role functioning 68.10 28.23 75.03 27.19 56.96 50.00 75.39 25.82 Emotional functioning 63.39 25.70 72.63 22.63 49.60 41.66 68.84 12.75 Cognitive functioning 64.43 28.52 73.94 23.88 48.13 27.93 78.57 23.07 Social functioning 51.24 32.26 48.10 35.57 51.96 28.25 65.47 23.96 Fatigue 45.98 24.80 43.03 23.88 52.35 23.07 36.24 30.36 Pain 41.57 27.66 35.44 25.72 52.94 26.23 28.96 28.04 Dyspnea 35.67 32.13 28.82 29.51 49.41 31.45 17.46 27.77 Appetite loss 37.41 30.45 30.85 28.59 50.78 28.13 19.04 28.64 Financial difficulties 51.85 35.42 56.47 38.78 47.84 30.53 42.85 31.48