Coordination and communication challenges in home-based palliative care complicate transitions from hospital care. Electronic symptom monitoring enables real-time data collection, enhancing patient-provider communication. However, a systematic evaluation of its effectiveness in home-based palliative care is lacking.
Aim:
To analyze the feasibility, effectiveness, and limitations of electronic symptom monitoring in home-based palliative care, assess the evidence quality, identify the evidence gap, and suggest implications for future research and practice.
Design:
This study uses systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis (CRD42023457977) to analyze relevant studies until September 2023.
Data sources:
Electronic searches in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase until September 2023, complemented by hand-searching of references and citations.
Results:
This study included twenty studies. The majority of patients positively engage in electronic symptom monitoring, which could improve their quality of life, physical and emotional well-being, and symptom scores without a significant increase in costs. However, firm conclusions about the effects of electronic symptom monitoring on outcomes like survival, hospital admissions, length of stay, emergency visits, and adverse events were limited due to significant variability in the reported data or inadequate statistical power.
Conclusion:
Introducing electronic symptom monitoring in home-based palliative care holds potential for enhancing patient-reported outcomes, potentially decreasing hospital visits and costs. However, inconsistency in current studies arising from diverse monitoring systems obstructs comparability. To advance, future high-quality research should employ standardized follow-up periods and established scales to better grasp the benefits of electronic symptom monitoring in home-based palliative care.
BaschESchragDHensonS, et al. Effect of electronic symptom monitoring on patient-reported outcomes among patients with metastatic cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA2022; 327(24): 2413–2422.
2.
WeldringTSmithSMS. Article commentary: patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights2013; 6: 61–68.
3.
PosadzkiPMastellosNRyanR, et al. Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2016; 12(12): CD009921.
4.
GandrupJAliSMMcBethJ, et al. Remote symptom monitoring integrated into electronic health records: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc2020; 27(11): 1752–1763.
5.
MichaudAVadeboncoeurACloutierL, et al. The feasibility of home self-assessment of vital signs and symptoms: a new key to telehealth for individuals?Int J Med Inform2021; 155: 104602.
6.
NippRDEl-JawahriARuddyM, et al. Pilot randomized trial of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention for hospitalized patients with cancer. Ann Oncol2019; 30(2): 274–280.
7.
AveryKNLRichardsHSPortalA, et al. Developing a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related surgery. BMC Cancer2019; 19(1): 463.
8.
RadbruchLDe LimaLKnaulF, et al. Redefining palliative care-a new consensus-based definition. J Pain Symptom Manage2020; 60(4): 754–764.
9.
VentafriddaV. According to the 2002 WHO definition of palliative care. Palliat Med2006; 20(3): 159.
10.
SandsdalenTHovRHøyeS, et al. Patients’ preferences in palliative care: a systematic mixed studies review. Palliat Med2015; 29(5): 399–419.
11.
ZimbroffRMOrnsteinKASheehanOC. Home-based primary care: a systematic review of the literature, 2010–2020. J Am Geriatr Soc2021; 69(10): 2963–2972.
12.
QuinnKLStukelTStallNM, et al. Association between palliative care and healthcare outcomes among adults with terminal non-cancer illness: population based matched cohort study. BMJ2020; 370: m2257.
13.
QuinnKLHsuATSmithG, et al. Association between palliative care and death at home in adults with heart failure. J Am Heart Assoc2020; 9(5): e013844.
14.
MaylandCRHoQMDoughtyHC, et al. The palliative care needs and experiences of people with advanced head and neck cancer: a scoping review. Palliat Med2021; 35(1): 27–44.
15.
OelschlägelLDihleAChristensenVL, et al. Implementing welfare technology in palliative homecare for patients with cancer: a qualitative study of health-care professionals' experiences. BMC Palliat Care2021; 20(1): 146.
16.
ScherrDKastnerPKollmannA, et al. Effect of home-based telemonitoring using mobile phone technology on the outcome of heart failure patients after an episode of acute decompensation: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res2009; 11(3): e34.
17.
SteindalSANesAAGGodskesenTE, et al. Advantages and challenges of using telehealth for home-based palliative care: systematic mixed studies review. J Med Internet Res2023; 25: e43684.
18.
DeeksJJHigginsJPTAltmanDG. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.4. Hoboken, NJ: Cochrane, 2023, pp.241–284.
19.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg2010; 8(5): 336–341.
20.
HigginsTLarsonESchnallR. Unraveling the meaning of patient engagement: a concept analysis. Patient Educ Couns2017; 100(1): 30–36.
21.
World Health Organization. WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1997.
22.
GarberCEGreaneyMLRiebeD, et al. Physical and mental health-related correlates of physical function in community dwelling older adults: a cross sectional study. BMC Geriatr2010; 10(1): 6.
23.
DworkinRHTurkDCFarrarJT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain2005; 113(1): 9–19.
24.
LiuLWangTChenY, et al. Electronic symptom monitoring for patients with advanced cancer (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev2023; 2023(7): CD015732.
25.
MaguireRMcCannLKotronoulasG, et al. Real time remote symptom monitoring during chemotherapy for cancer: European multicentre randomised controlled trial (eSMART). BMJ2021; 374: n1647.
26.
PavicMKlaasVTheileG, et al. Mobile health technologies for continuous monitoring of cancer patients in palliative care aiming to predict health status deterioration: a feasibility study. J Palliat Med2020; 23(5): 678–685.
27.
MaudlinJKeeneJKobbR. A road map for the last journey: home telehealth for holistic end-of-life care. Am J Hosp Palliat Med2006; 23(5): 399–403.
28.
NemecekRHuberPSchurS, et al. Telemedically augmented palliative care : Empowerment for patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers. Wien Klin Wochenschr2019; 131(23–24): 620–626.
29.
HuiDBrueraE. Models of palliative care delivery for patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol2020; 38(9): 852–865.
30.
McKenzieJEBrennanSE. Chapter 12: synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al. (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.4. Hoboken, NJ: Cochrane, 2023, pp.321–348.
31.
CampbellMMcKenzieJESowdenA, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ2020; 368: l6890.
32.
SterneJACSavovićJPageMJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ2019; 366: l4898.
33.
SterneJAHernánMAReevesBC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ2016; 355: i4919.
34.
GustafsonDHDuBenskeLLAtwoodAK, et al. Reducing symptom distress in patients with advanced cancer using an e-alert system for caregivers: pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials. J Med Internet Res2017; 19(11): e354.
35.
LeeMKangDKangE, et al. Efficacy of the PRO-CTCAE mobile application for improving patient participation in symptom management during cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Support Care Cancer2023; 31(6): 321.
36.
BakitasMADionne-OdomJNEjemDB, et al. Effect of an early palliative care telehealth intervention vs usual care on patients with heart failure: the ENABLE CHF-PC randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Med2020; 180(9): 1203–1213.
37.
HellemanJVan EenennaamRKruitwagenET, et al. Telehealth as part of specialized ALS care: feasibility and user experiences with “ALS home-monitoring and coaching”. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener2020; 21(3–4): 183–192.
38.
Castillo PadrosMRPastorNAltarriba ParacollsJ, et al. A smart system for remote monitoring of patients in palliative care (HumanITcare Platform): mixed methods study. JMIR Form Res2023; 7: e45654.
39.
SchulerTKingCMatsveruT, et al. 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. J Palliat Med2023; 26(7): 980–985.
40.
CornettaKNyarikiSManjiI, et al. Telehospice for cancer patients discharged from a tertiary care hospital in Western Kenya. J Pain Symptom Manage2023; 65(5): 378–387.
41.
ZyllaDMGilmoreGESteeleGL, et al. Collection of electronic patient-reported symptoms in patients with advanced cancer using Epic MyChart surveys. Support Care Cancer2020; 28(7): 3153–3163.
42.
HochstenbachLMZwakhalenSMCourtensAM, et al. Feasibility of a mobile and web-based intervention to support self-management in outpatients with cancer pain. Eur J Oncol Nurs2016; 23: 97–105.
43.
AdamRBondCMBurtonCD, et al. Can-Pain-a digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community: development and feasibility testing. Support Care Cancer2021; 29(2): 759–769.
44.
McCallKKeenJFarrerK, et al. Perceptions of the use of a remote monitoring system in patients receiving palliative care at home. Int J Palliat Nurs2008; 14(9): 426–431.
45.
MaguireRReamERichardsonA, et al. Development of a novel remote patient monitoring system: the advanced symptom management system for radiotherapy to improve the symptom experience of patients with lung cancer receiving radiotherapy. Cancer Nurs2015; 38(2): E37–E47.
46.
WujcikDDudleyWNDudleyM, et al. Electronic patient symptom management program to support patients receiving cancer treatment at home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Value Health2022; 25(6): 931–936.
47.
BonsignoreLBloomNSteinhauserK, et al. Evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of a telehealth program in a rural palliative care population: tapcloud for palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage2018; 56(1): 7–14.
48.
BesseKTFaber-te BoveldtNDJanssenGH, et al. Pain assessment with short message service and interactive voice response in outpatients with cancer and pain: a feasibility study. Pain Pract2016; 16(3): 320–326.
49.
BhargavaRKeatingBIsenbergSR, et al. RELIEF: a digital health tool for the remote self-reporting of symptoms in patients with cancer to address palliative care needs and minimize emergency department visits. Curr Oncol2021; 28(6): 4273–4780.
50.
KissaneDWAppletonJLennonJ, et al. Psycho-existential symptom assessment scale (PeSAS) screening in palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage2022; 64(5): 429–437.
51.
AtkinNVickerstaffVCandyB. ‘Worried to death’: the assessment and management of anxiety in patients with advanced life-limiting disease, a national survey of palliative medicine physicians. BMC Palliat Care2017; 16(1): 69.
52.
McPhersonCJWilsonKGMurrayMA. Feeling like a burden to others: a systematic review focusing on the end of life. Palliat Med2007; 21(2): 115–128.
53.
Kentish-BarnesNPoujolA-LBanseE, et al. Giving a voice to patients at high risk of dying in the intensive care unit: a multiple source approach. Intensive Care Med. 2023; 49(7): 808–819.
54.
García AbejasASerra TrullásASobralMA, et al. Improving the understanding and managing of the quality of life of patients with lung cancer with electronic patient-reported outcome measures: scoping review. J Med Internet Res2023; 25: e46259.
55.
LylesCRWachterRMSarkarU. Focusing on digital health equity. JAMA2021; 326(18): 1795–1796.
56.
SedgwickPGreenwoodN. Understanding the Hawthorne effect. BMJ. 2015; 351: h4672.
57.
CianiOSalcher-KonradMMeregagliaM, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in core outcome sets targeted overlapping domains but through different instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 136: 26–36.
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.
