3284 - Patient Reported Outcomes in Radiotherapy (PRO-RT) Utilizing an Integrated Patient Portal; Results from a Prospective Single Arm Trial

Y. Sharifzadeh¹, J. N. Hobson¹, W. S. Harmsen², K. F. Pyfferoen¹, A. Amundson¹, M. R. Waddle¹, D. J. Ma¹, S. Shiraishi¹, T. J. Hammer¹, N. N. Laack II¹, and K. S. Corbin¹; ¹Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, ²Department of Biostatistics and Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

Purpose/Objective(s): Availability of online portals has increased patient satisfaction and facilitated sharing of vital data for care management, such as patient reported outcomes surveys (PROs). Despite known improvements in oncologic outcomes with routine PRO use, survey burden often leads to sub-optimal completion rates. There are also challenges with patient access to portals across multiple institutions. We hypothesized that the use of an integrated patient portal (IPP) would improve patient engagement with PROs and ease of healthcare information access. Materials/

Methods: We partnered with a health information company to present cancer patients with an IPP for standardized disease site specific PRO administration and integration of portals from our institution, other hospitals, commercial pharmacies, and personal wearable technologies. Between March 2022 and March 2023, 72 patients presenting for breast, head and neck, or lung radiotherapy (RT) were prospectively approached for trial enrollment. Upon consent, a personalized URL to the IPP was provided. Patients who enrolled were co-consented to a PRO registry study comprised of surveys sent at baseline, end of RT, and 3- and 6-months post-RT. A technology use survey was administered at 6 months. Patients received $5.00 per completed survey. Survey completion rates were compared to patients using the standard institutional electronic interface. IPP integration was encouraged; study coordinator assistance was available throughout the study period.
Results: Of the 72 patients approached, 27 (38%) consented to the study. No demographic differences were noted between those who did and did not consent. Of the 27 consented, 18 became active users. All 18 used the IPP for PRO survey completion while only 2 also used the portal’s integrative features. Sixteen felt “very” comfortable with using electronic forms of communication, but only 12 preferred these methods. IPP user PRO completion rates were 100%, 89%, 89%, and 94% at baseline, end of RT, and 3- and 6-months post-RT. Of the 45 who declined enrollment, 24 (53%) reported concerns with information sharing, 13% declined surveys or online enrollment, and 18% did not enroll within the designated eligibility window.
Conclusion: While PRO completion rates were high in IPP study participants, most approached patients declined enrollment in the trial. Concerns regarding data sharing, security, and reliability were common. Among those who participated, few utilized the portal integration features. Despite the promise of IPPs to promote ease of access to and integration of healthcare information, further understanding of patient needs is merited for successful implementation of IPP platforms in radiation oncology.