Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lebensqualität in der digitalen Transformation

Quality of life in digital transformation

  • Fokus
  • Published:
Forum Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Die gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität ist ein vielschichtiges Konstrukt zur Beschreibung des individuellen Krankheitserlebens. Patientenberichtete Angaben (PRO) können diese adäquat abbilden und werden inzwischen auch mithilfe elektronischer und mobiler Erfassungssysteme erhoben. Typische und elementare Bestandteile der PRO sind z. B. Krankheitssymptome und die therapiebedingte Toxizität, deren Einschätzung und Bewertung sich zwischen Patienten und Behandlern oft stark unterscheidet. Behörden fordern bereits seit Langem die Verwendung von PRO, u. a. bei zulassungsrelevanten Fragestellungen. Mobile und elektronische Lösungen und Interventionen können auch dazu beitragen, patienten- und therapierelevante Endpunkte wie Lebensqualität, Verträglichkeit und Effektivität zu verbessern. Außerdem ist die elektronische Erfassung von PRO auch in der täglichen Routine möglich. Individuelle und spezifische Fragebögen, wie sie aktuell z. B. für die Erfassung der Nebenwirkungen entwickelt werden, stellen eine wesentliche Ergänzung dar. Leitlinien und Standards sind zunehmend verfügbar für Forschung und Routine.

Abstract

Health-related quality of life is a complex construct for describing the individual experience of illness. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) can adequately reflect this and are now also collected using electronic and mobile recording systems. Typical and elementary components of PRO are, for example, symptoms of disease and treatment-related toxicity. There is often a discordance between patients’ and clinicians’ perception of these components. Authorities have been demanding the use of PRO for a long time, for example in approval-related issues. Mobile and electronic solutions and interventions can also contribute to improving patient-relevant and treatment-relevant endpoints, such as quality of life, tolerability and effectiveness. In addition, PRO can also be electronically recorded in the daily routine. Individual and specific questionnaires, such as those currently being developed for the recording of adverse drug reactions, are an essential supplement. Guidelines and standards are increasingly available for research and routine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Andreassen HK, Trondsen M, Kummervold PE et al (2006) Patients who use e‑mediated communication with their doctor: New constructions of trust in the patient-doctor relationship. Qual Health Res 16:238–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305284667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson TM, Ryan SJ, Bennett AV et al (2016) The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events ({CTCAE}) and patient-reported outcomes ({PRO}): a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 24:3669–3676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3297-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Basch E, Artz D, Dulko D et al (2005) Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 23:3552–3561. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG et al (2016) Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 34:557–565. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju244

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ (2013) A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-211

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis C, Naci H, Gurpinar E et al (2017) Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: Retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009–13. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4530

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ebrahim S (1995) Clinical and public health perspectives and applications of health-related quality of life measurement. Soc Sci Med 41:1383–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00116-O

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Efficace F, Rosti G, Aaronson N et al (2014) Patient- versus physician-reporting of symptoms and health status in chronic myeloid leukemia. Haematologica 99:788–793. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2013.093724

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. European Medicines Agency (2016) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fares CM, Williamson TJ, Theisen MK et al (2018) Low concordance of patient-reported outcomes with clinical and clinical trial documentation. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1200/cci.18.00059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. FDA (2009) Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims

    Google Scholar 

  13. Groenvold M, Aaronson NK, Darlington ASE et al (2016) Focusing on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials—Letter. Clin Cancer Res 22:5617. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Günther M, Schuler M, Hentschel L et al (2020) Development of tumor disease-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets. In: Oncol. Res. Treat.—Abstr. DKK, Bd. 43, S 157–158 (suppl. Andreas Hochhaus, Jena)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ishaque S, Karnon J, Chen G et al (2019) A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Qual Life Res 28:567–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2016-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kirsch M, Mitchell SA, Dobbels F et al (2015) Linguistic and content validation of a German-language PRO-CTCAE-based patient-reported outcomes instrument to evaluate the late effect symptom experience after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Eur J Oncol Nurs 19:66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2014.07.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kluetz PG, O’Connor DJ, Soltys K (2018) Incorporating the patient experience into regulatory decision making in the USA, Europe, and Canada. Lancet Oncol 19:e267–e274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30097-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kofoed S, Breen S, Gough K, Aranda S (2012) Benefits of remote real-time side-effect monitoring systems for patients receiving cancer treatment. Oncol Rev 6:51–63. https://doi.org/10.4081/oncol.2012.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lizée T, Basch E, Trémolières P et al (2019) Cost-effectiveness of web-based patient-reported outcome surveillance in patients with lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 14:1012–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2019.02.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Di Maio M, Gallo C, Leighl NB et al (2015) Symptomatic toxicities experienced during anticancer treatment: agreement between patient and physician reporting in three randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 33:910–915. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.57.9334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Petersen MA, Aaronson NK, Conroy T et al (2020) International validation of the EORTC CAT Core: a new adaptive instrument for measuring core quality of life domains in cancer. Qual Life Res 29:1405–1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02421-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Strasser F, Blum D, Von Moos R et al (2016) The effect of real-time electronic monitoring of patient-reported symptoms and clinical syndromes in outpatient workflow of medical oncologists: E‑MOSAIC, a multicenter cluster-randomized phase III study (SAKK 95/06). Ann Oncol 27:324–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv576

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Trautmann F, Hentschel L, Hornemann B et al (2016) Electronic real-time assessment of patient-reported outcomes in routine care—first findings and experiences from the implementation in a comprehensive cancer center. Support Care Cancer 24:3047–3056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3127-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2017) Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 5.0

    Google Scholar 

  25. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB et al (2004) Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 22:714–724. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vodicka E, Kim K, Devine EB et al (2015) Inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in registered clinical trials: Evidence from ClinicalTrials.gov (2007–2013). Contemp Clin Trials 43:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.04.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Warrington L, Absolom K, Conner M et al (2019) Electronic systems for patients to report and manage side effects of cancer treatment: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 21:e10875. https://doi.org/10.2196/10875

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilmer A, Jansen C, Ko Y‑D et al (2014) Multiprofessionelles Medikationsmanagement bei Krebspatienten. Forum 29:324–330

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wintner LM, Sztankay M, Giesinger JM et al (2016) EORTC quality of life group manual for the use of EORTC measures in daily clinical practice. Eortc Qual Life. https://www.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/EORTC_QLQ_Clinical_Practice_User_Manual-1.0.pdf. Zugegriffen: 28.08.2020

  30. National Cancer Institute, NCI (2020) Patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE™) items-German. Item library version 1.0. https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/pro-ctcae/pro-ctcae_german.pdf. Zugegriffen: 28.8.2020

  31. Schuler M, Hentschel L (2019) Lebensqualität beim kolorektalen Karzinom – was wir noch lernen können. J Onkol 4:34–43

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Onkologie, Helios Klinikum Emil von Behring, Walterhöferstraße 11, 14165, Berlin, Deutschland

    Markus K. Schuler MSc

  2. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Deutschland

    Markus K. Schuler MSc

  3. Universitäts KrebsCentrum (NCT/UCC), Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Deutschland

    Leopold Hentschel

  4. Pharmazeutisches Institut, Abteilung Klinische Pharmazie, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland

    Maximilian Günther & Ulrich Jaehde

Authors
  1. Markus K. Schuler MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maximilian Günther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ulrich Jaehde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leopold Hentschel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus K. Schuler MSc.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

M. K. Schuler, M. Günther, U. Jaehde und L. Hentschel geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schuler, M.K., Günther, M., Jaehde, U. et al. Lebensqualität in der digitalen Transformation. Forum 35, 391–395 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12312-020-00842-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12312-020-00842-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation