Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-07
Wearable-Triggered Ecological Momentary Assessments Are Feasible in People With Advanced Cancer and Their Family Caregivers: Feasibility Study from an Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic at a Cancer Center
Emerging digital health approaches could play a role in better personalized palliative care.
Aim:
We conducted a feasibility study testing wearable sensor (WS)-triggered ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) and electronic patient-reported outcomes in community palliative care with patient–caregiver dyads.
Design:
All wore consumer-grade WS for five weeks. Sensor-detected “stress” (heart rate variability algorithm) that passed individualized thresholds triggered a short smartphone survey. Daily sleep surveys, weekly symptom surveys (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale), and a poststudy experience survey were conducted.
Setting/Participants:
Fifteen dyads (n = 30) were recruited from an outpatient palliative care clinic for people with cancer.
Results:
Daytime sensor wear-time had 73% adherence. Participants perceived value in this support. Quantity and severity of “stress” events were higher in patients. Sleep disturbance was similar but for different reasons: patients (physical symptoms) and caregivers (worrying about the patient).
Conclusions:
EMAs are feasible and valued in community palliative care.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GomesB, CalanzaniN, GyselsM, et al.Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: A systematic review. BMC Palliat Care, 2013; 12(1):7; doi: 10.1186/1472-684X-12-7
2.
BurgeF, LawsonB, JohnstonG, et al.Preferred and actual location of death: What factors enable a preferred home death?. J Palliat Med, 2015; 18(12):1054–1059; doi: 10.1089/jpm.2015.0177
3.
GrandeG, RowlandC, van den BergB, et al.Psychological morbidity and general health among family caregivers during end-of-life cancer care: A retrospective census survey. Palliat Med, 2018; 32(10):1605–1614; doi: 10.1177/0269216318793286
4.
BerryLL, DalwadiSM, JacobsonJO. Supporting the supporters: What family caregivers need to care for a loved one with cancer. JOP, 2017; 13(1):35–41; doi: 10.1200/JOP.2016.017913
5.
LapidMI, AthertonPJ, KungS, et al.Cancer caregiver quality of life: Need for targeted intervention. Psychooncology, 2016; 25(12):1400–1407; doi: 10.1002/pon.3960
6.
DisalvoD, AgarM, CaplanG, et al.Virtual models of care for people with palliative care needs living in their own home: A systematic meta-review and narrative synthesis. Palliat Med, 2021; 35(8):1385–1406.; doi: 10.1177/02692163211024451
7.
OhriN, HalmosB, BodnerWR, et al.Daily step counts: A new prognostic factor in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2019; 105(4):745–751; doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.07.055
8.
ScottJM, SteneG, EdvardsenE, et al.Performance status in cancer: Not broken, but time for an upgrade?. J Clin Oncol, 2020; 38(25):2824–2829; doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00721
9.
OhriN, KabarritiR, BodnerWR, et al.Continuous activity monitoring during concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2017; 97(5):1061–1065; doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.12.030
10.
IzmailovaES, WoodWA. Biometric monitoring technologies in cancer: The past, present, and future. JCO Clin Cancer Inform, 2021;(5):728–733; doi: 10.1200/CCI.21.00019
11.
LynchBM, NguyenNH, MooreMM, et al.Maintenance of physical activity and sedentary behavior change, and physical activity and sedentary behavior change after an abridged intervention: Secondary outcomes from the ACTIVATE Trial. Cancer, 2019; 125(16):2856–2860; doi: 10.1002/cncr.32142
12.
MaherCA, DavisCR, CurtisRG, et al.A physical activity and diet program delivered by artificially intelligent virtual health coach: Proof-of-concept study. JMIR mHealth uHealth, 2020; 8(7):e17558; doi: 10.2196/17558
13.
PavicM, KlaasV, TheileG, et al.Feasibility and usability aspects of continuous remote monitoring of health status in palliative cancer patients using wearables. Oncology, 2020; 98(Suppl. 6):386–395; doi: 10.1159/000501433
14.
KampshoffCS, Verdonck-de LeeuwIM, OijenMG, et al.Ecological momentary assessments among patients with cancer: A scoping review. Eur J Cancer Care, 2019; 28(3):e13095; doi: 10.1111/ecc.13095
15.
KimJ, Marcusson-ClavertzD, YoshiuchiK, et al.Potential benefits of integrating ecological momentary assessment data into mHealth care systems. BioPsychoSocial Med, 2019; 13(1):19; doi: 10.1186/s13030-019-0160-5
16.
van GenugtenCR, SchuurmansJ, LamersF, et al.Experienced burden of and adherence to smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment in persons with affective disorders. J Clin Med, 2020; 9(2):322; doi: 10.3390/jcm9020322
17.
LeBaronV, HayesJ, GordonK, et al.Leveraging smart health technology to empower patients and family caregivers in managing cancer pain: Protocol for a feasibility study. JMIR Res Protoc, 2019; 8(12):e16178; doi: 10.2196/16178
18.
LeBaronV, BennettR, AlamR, et al.Understanding the experience of cancer pain from the perspective of patients and family caregivers to inform design of an in-home smart health system: Multimethod approach. JMIR Format Res, 2020; 4(8):e20836; doi: 10.2196/20836
19.
SandbergJ, SundhJ, AnderbergP, et al.Comparing recalled versus experienced symptoms of breathlessness ratings: An ecological assessment study using mobile phone technology. Respirol, 2022; 27(10):874–881; doi: 10.1111/resp.14313
20.
JuliousSA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat, 2005; 4(4):287–291; doi: 10.1002/pst.185
21.
AbernethyAP, Shelby-JamesT, FazekasBS, et al.The Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scale: A revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481]. BMC Palliat Care, 2005; 4(1):7; doi: 10.1186/1472-684X-4-7
22.
HarrisPA, TaylorR, ThielkeR, et al.Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform, 2009; 42(2):377–381; doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
23.
HarrisPA, TaylorR, MinorBL, et al.The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform, 2019; 95:103208; doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
24.
MurtaghFE, RamsenthalerC, FirthA, et al.A brief, patient- and proxy-reported outcome measure in advanced illness: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS). Palliat Med, 2019; 33(8):1045–1057; doi: 10.1177/0269216319854264
25.
BraunV, ClarkeV, HayfieldN, et al. Thematic analysis. In: Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. (Liamputtong P. ed.) Springer Singapore: Singapore; 2018; pp. 1–18.
26.
ElmagboulN, CoburnBW, FosterJ, et al.Physical activity measured using wearable activity tracking devices associated with gout flares. Arthritis Res Ther, 2020; 22(1):181; doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02272-2
27.
SchulerT, HrubyG, KwongC, et al.Quantitative results from the tracker study: Feasibility of real-time activity and weight monitoring during routine care of oncology patients. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Auckland, 2019; 63(S1):89–102; doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.2_12955
28.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria; 2021.
29.
SaurmanE, AllinghamS, DraperK, et al.Preferred place of death—A study of 2 specialist community palliative care services in Australia. J Palliat Care, 2022; 37(1):26–33; doi: 10.1177/08258597211018059
30.
SebringK, ShattuckJ, BerkJ, et al.Assessing the validity of proxy caregiver reporting for potential palliative care outcome measures in Parkinson's disease. Palliat Med, 2018; 32(9):1522–1528; doi: 10.1177/0269216318785830
31.
GrootOQ, Paulino PereiraNR, BongersMER, et al.Do Cohabitants reliably complete questionnaires for patients in a terminal cancer stage when assessing quality of life, pain, depression, and anxiety?. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2021; 479(4):792–801; doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001525
32.
DegrooteL, DeSmetA, De BourdeaudhuijI, et al.Content validity and methodological considerations in ecological momentary assessment studies on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: A systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 2020; 17(1):35; doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-00932-9
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
