ADVERTISEMENT
Patient-Reported Outcomes in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients: Design, Implementation, and Pilot Results
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) offer a collaborative opportunity between the patient and the care team to improve the quality of care.
Objectives: To define PROMs in patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), a pre-visit questionnaire (PVQ) was developed, which included a single agenda-setting question, the PROMIS-29 survey, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer (DT).
Study Design: Patients completed the PVQ 1 month prior to transplant (baseline) and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following transplant.
Results: Sixty-five patients (n = 27 allogenic; n = 38 autologous) participated. Survey completion rates were 95% at 1 month post-transplant, 74% at 6 months, and 65% at one year. One month following transplant, patients’ fatigue (P < .001) increased, while physical (P < .001) and social (P < .001) functions decreased. Each returned to baseline at 3 months (P < .001). Fatigue was more pronounced in allogeneic recipients (P = .017) and autologous recipients recovered physical function much sooner (P = .021).
Conclusions: This study confirms the feasibility of capturing PROMs longitudinally in patients receiving HSCT and demonstrates significant changes in fatigue and physical and social functioning following transplant.
Introduction
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) involves a physically and emotionally challenging treatment with a prolonged recovery period that often leads to an inferior quality of life for patients. Real-time identification of concerns during treatment can address patient challenges, but patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) describing symptoms, functional status, and sources of distress are often not available to inform medical decisions at the point of care during an office visit. PROs are defined as “any report of the status of a patient’s health that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician. The outcome can be measured in absolute terms (eg, severity of a symptom, sign, or state of a disease) or as a change from a previous measure.”1 In addition to defining the patient experience, PROMs offer a collaborative opportunity between the patient and care team to improve the quality and safety of the care provided.2
Prior studies using PROMs in patients with cancer largely focus on primary or adjuvant cancer care. PROMs research in patients receiving HSCT is relatively novel and published reports are emerging.3-8 When used during a patient’s office visit, PROMs provide information that can be used to jointly assess the patient’s evolving health outcomes, decide on next steps in the patient’s treatment plan, and monitor the impact of care on health and well-being.9-13
The routine incorporation of PROMs from HSCT recipients into clinical care improves both patient-physician communication and patient satisfaction.14-16 Patients demonstrate improved health when they partner with their treating clinicians to coproduce care plans, based on their preferences and concerns.17,18 Current research demonstrates that PROMs augment the transplant physicians’ understanding of the experience of the patient receiving HSCT3,19 since physicians tend to overestimate patients’ quality of life compared with patients’ reports.20
Based on our experience using PROMs to improve care for patients, our interdisciplinary team, including members of the Transplant and Cellular Therapy team and health services researchers at The Dartmouth Institute for Health Care Policy and Clinical Practice and the Dartmouth Cancer Center (DCC), planned to measure baseline health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in HSCT recipients at baseline and through 12 months post-transplant period.9,10,21-27 There were two main objectives of this study: First, we sought to determine the feasibility of routinely capturing HRQoL data in HSCT in the first year following stem cell transplantation. The second objective was to examine the trajectory of HRQoL among people receiving HSCT and to compare HRQoL between people receiving an autologous or an allogeneic HSCT. Since the allogeneic transplant experience tends to be more physically demanding with more toxicities, we expected there would be a difference in PROMs when comparing autologous and allogenic transplant recipients, but results within the literature are mixed.28-31
Materials and Methods
Identifying Appropriate PROMs: Patient and Caregiver Forums
Our interdisciplinary team’s primary goal was to identify and evaluate HRQoL in patients receiving HSCT. After an extensive review of the literature, the research team identified the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) as the most appropriate tool to assess HRQoL. This tool has been validated in various populations of patients with cancer and is endorsed by the National Institutes of Health, the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, and the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network.25,32
Prior to starting the distribution of surveys to patients, a series of four focus groups with 5-10 patients and their caregivers assessed the feasibility and acceptability of PROMIS-29, as well as potential time points for patients’ completion of the surveys. Based on recommendations from the focus groups, a pre-visit questionnaire (PVQ) with open-ended questions assessing the patient’s top concerns to address and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer (DT) were added to the PROMIS-29 survey. The NCCN DT has been validated in patients with cancer and HSCT recipients.33-35
Patient Population
Patients 18 years of age or older receiving an autologous or allogeneic HSCT at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and the DCC were eligible. After discussion with our local institutional review board (IRB), this work was considered a quality improvement project and IRB approval was not required.
Implementation of the Process
Based on recommendations obtained from patient and caregiver forums, the PVQ, which included the PROMIS-29 survey, the NCCN-DT, and agenda-setting questions, were administered to patients at five time points: 1 month prior to transplant (baseline) and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following transplant. The PVQ was distributed in paper format and mailed to patients or handed to patients during their clinic visit. To ensure compliance, patients were phoned 1 week prior to their scheduled appointment and reminded to complete the survey. If the survey was not completed prior to the patient’s clinic visit, a research nurse met with the patient and asked that the patient complete the survey in the waiting room. The completed forms were collected by a research nurse and each patient was assigned a unique patient number. The results were then entered into a database.
The agenda-setting question was open ended: “What is your number-one concern that you would like to discuss at today’s visit?” Agenda-setting responses were available to the provider at the time of the visit and were used to engage the patient in conversation and explore their priorities for the visit; however, due to their qualitative nature, responses were not included within our PROMs dataset. The PROMIS-29 and the NCCN DT were not available at the time of the visit but were collected and scored after the visit.
Collection of Patient Data
Each patient was provided a unique patient number and patient-specific results were entered into a spreadsheet-based software database. Data were considered evaluable if a patient completed one or more posttransplant surveys, with the pretransplant survey required for comparison.
Statistical Analyses
Primary analyses used outcomes scores at each assessment, with a linear mixed effects longitudinal regression including a random individual effect to account for correlation between repeated measurements within individuals. All models were adjusted for age, gender, type of stem cell transplant, and baseline score. We accounted for the time difference in the linear mixed models to get observed margin estimates at “time = 0.” In addition, we examined type of stem cell transplant. Subgroup analyses and outcomes were stratified by type of stem cell transplant through an interaction term between “type of stem cell transplant” and “assessment time period.” Analyses were performed using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina). Statistical significance was defined as P < .05 based on a two-sided hypothesis test with no adjustments made for multiple comparisons.
Results
Patient Characteristics
From October 2019 to October 2020, 65 patients participated in the evaluation (Table 1). Median patient age was 62 years (range: 19-73 years). Fifty-two percent were female and 48% were male. Forty-two percent received an allogeneic HSCT and 58% received an autologous HSCT. The most common patient diagnoses included multiple myeloma, acute myeloid leukemia, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Survey Completion Rates
Of 67 consecutive patients completing a baseline evaluation, 65 (97%) were eligible for participation. Survey completion rates were 95% at 1 month posttransplant (n = 62 patients: autologous = 36, allogeneic = 26), 88% at 3 months (n = 57 patients: autologous = 32, allogeneic = 25), 74% at 6 months (n = 48 patients: autologous = 29, allogeneic = 19), and 65% at 1 year (n = 42 patients: autologous = 28, allogeneic = 14). Overall, 43% (n = 28) completed all five surveys, 42% (n = 27) completed four surveys, 9% (n = 6) completed three surveys, and 6% (n = 4) completed two surveys.
Identification and Comparison of HRQoL Following Autologous or Allogeneic Transplant
When HRQoL was examined among all HSCT recipients and outcomes were adjusted for age, gender, type of transplant, and baseline score, three signs and symptoms varied significantly over time, including fatigue (P < .001), physical function (P < .001), and social function (P < .001) (Figure 1; Supplementary Table 1). When compared to baseline, transplant patients’ level of fatigue increased at 1 month posttransplant for all patients and returned to baseline at 3 months following transplant. Both physical function and social function followed a similar path, with a decrease in function at 1 month posttransplant followed by a slow and gradual increase back to baseline at 12 months following transplant.
![Figure 1. Patient PROMIS 29 Results: T-Scores for the Entire Cohort.](https://d148x66490prkv.cloudfront.net/hmp_ln/inline-images/Screenshot%202024-04-12%20at%202.11.19%E2%80%AFPM.png)
Figure 2 shows the changes in PROMs from baseline (pretransplant) until 1 year posttransplant between patients receiving an allogeneic or autologous transplant (Supplementary Table 2). Fatigue and difficulties with physical function were more prominent within the allogeneic transplant recipients compared to autologous patients. When comparing the two cohorts, fatigue levels rose in both groups, but the level of fatigue was more pronounced in the allogeneic recipients (P = .017). An initial decline in physical function occurred in all recipients, but patients receiving an autologous transplant demonstrated a higher overall physical function than those receiving an allogeneic transplant (P = .021). A similar pattern was observed with a decline in social function in both groups, but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = .16). There were no differences between the two cohorts in the other PROMIS-29 domains or in the overall NCCN DT score (Supplementary Table 1). Within the NCCN DT problem list categories, there was a notable decline in patients receiving HSCT identifying emotional problems, from 57% at baseline to 22% at 12 months posttransplant (P < .001) (Supplementary Table 3).
![Figure 2. Patient PROMIS 29 Results: T-Scores Separated by Type of Stem Cell Transplant.](https://d148x66490prkv.cloudfront.net/hmp_ln/inline-images/Screenshot%202024-04-12%20at%202.12.04%E2%80%AFPM.png)
The open-ended agenda-setting questions were used to guide discussion but were not routinely logged for this study. Patient and physician feedback regarding these questions was strongly favorable.
Discussion
This study confirms the acceptability and feasibility of capturing PROMs longitudinally in patients receiving HSCT and supports the value of collecting PROMs in patients who have received transplants. Initially, patient acceptability of the project was high, with 97% of consecutive patients engaging in the study. Survey completion rates remained high over the year following transplant, ranging from 65% to 95%.
As expected, the results demonstrate statistically significant changes in the level of fatigue, physical functioning, and social functioning over the course of a year following transplant. We identified statistically significant differences in symptoms when comparing patients receiving autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplant, with allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients experiencing more severe fatigue and prolonged physical dysfunction when compared to patients receiving an autologous transplant.
This study provides an exploratory view of the value of agenda-setting questions for transplant patients and their providers. Based on patient and physician feedback over the time period of this study, we have expanded the open-ended questions and now include three questions: “What are the top things you’d like to discuss in your upcoming visit with the transplant team?”, “What has been going well for you in the last week?”, and “What goals are important to you that you want the team to be aware of?” We have since conducted a thematic assessment of these responses in a subsequent patient population,18 and studies are ongoing to understand the value of agenda-setting questions and the impact of disease-related anxiety.
Due to the arduous nature of transplant and the challenging posttransplant clinical course, physical symptoms—including fatigue, sleep disturbances, and pain—are the major contributors to impairments in HRQoL following transplant.19 Fatigue is generally the most common complaint among transplant recipients.36 Due to the prolonged hospital stay and subsequent course associated with allogeneic stem cell transplantation, it is more common for allogeneic patients to experience prolonged fatigue and physical dysfunction compared with autologous recipients, as our data demonstrate. Our results show that patients who received transplants report the lowest levels of physical functioning immediately following transplant, with a gradual improvement to pretransplantation levels within 3 months after transplantation. These results have been corroborated by others.6,19,28,37,38
The PVQ was designed to engage the patient in shared communication and included open-ended agenda-setting questions that allow the patient to identify primary concerns they want to address during the visit. Research supports that an agenda-setting opening question enhances the physician-patient connection within the clinical encounter.39,40 Incorporation of the PVQ surveys (including the PROMIS-29, NCCN DT, and agenda-setting questions) into the transplant clinic is now part of our routine care, demonstrating ease of use along with both clinician and patient engagement. The routine incorporation of PROMs into the clinical care of patients receiving HSCT can provide several benefits, including the potential for improved patient-physician communication, enhanced accuracy of providers’ understanding of the experience of patients receiving HSCT, and an amplified role for patient-clinician shared decision-making.19,20,41 In addition, PROMs facilitate the prompt recognition and treatment of patient symptoms.42 These benefits promote a stronger alliance between patients and their providers and an overall improvement in patient satisfaction.14-16Finally, it is important to note that the use of PROMS can provide benefits on many levels. For example, Sawatzky et al described the potential benefits of PROMs that focus on patient-specific responses and patient care, known as “micro” aims.43 The use of PROMs to address the institutional delivery of care is considered a “macro” aim. Our initial focus was to design and implement a standardized process that incorporated PROMs into patients’ clinic visits (ie, a macro aim). Our long-term goal was to provide patient-specific PROMs results at the time of the patient’s visit, to assist in patient care and decision making (ie, a micro aim).
We acknowledge limitations of this study. First, as a single-center study in a rural National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center, the results may not be applicable to other institutions. Second, due to published reports, national committee recommendations, and patient/caregiver recommendations, we selected the PROMIS-29 and NCCN DT as part of our PROMs surveys. Other surveys or measures may provide additional beneficial or complementary information. For example, tools that capture financial toxicity or symptoms related to graft-vs-host disease may add significant value to our current PROMs surveys. Third, the paper format of the PVQ limited our ability to intervene in real time. The agenda-setting questions were available to the provider at the time of the visit, but the DT and scored PROMIS-29 were not. All PROMs were reviewed by the treating physician and the medical team in aggregate and retrospectively. This process demonstrated the limitations of the paper format and the urgent need for real-time PROM results that could be reviewed with the patient, as was done with the agenda-setting questions. Based on knowledge gained from this pilot study, the PVQ is now completely electronic, which allows the care team to review the results with the patient during their clinic visit and track changes over time by viewing current and past responses within the electronic medical record (EMR). Fourth, as an exploratory study, we did not mandate or track interventions for individual patients based on PRO values. Future studies are underway that allow us to use PROMs to activate clinical pathways (eg, providing referrals based on food insecurity, transportation barriers, or PROMIS-29 function scores) and to examine the relationship between PROMs and outcomes.
Our data demonstrate that PROMs can reliably monitor areas that impact quality of life of HSCT recipients over time. We continue to monitor PROMs in our patients and we have tailored interventions to improve symptom management in these patients, which may improve patients’ quality of life and long-term outcomes. Based on these results, we have begun to pilot the use of an electronic PROMs survey collected prior to office visits. These results are incorporated within the patient’s EMR. A patient-specific dashboard displays the patient’s agenda-setting responses and PROMs alongside their clinical data, including laboratory results, vital signs, and medications. Other studies have shown that such a dashboard facilitates discussion about the relationship between laboratory results, medications, and PROMs and improves patient understanding of their health status over time.9,10,43-46 Patients’ responses and primary concerns will also identify areas requiring additional support. We believe that the routine collection of PROMs in patients receiving HSCT and the review at each clinic visit will serve as a springboard for improved discussion and collaboration between patients and providers. Additionally, we are examining ways to utilize PROMs to improve patients’ financial concerns, quality of life, and long-term outcomes of patients receiving HSCT.
This article has supplementary material, which can be accessed here: Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Table 2, Supplementary Table 3.
Author Information
Authors: Christi Ann Hayes MD1; Aricca D. Van Citters MS2; Wenyan Zhao PhD2; Kate L. Caldon1; Charlotte M. Coughenour1; Tor D. Tosteson PhD2; Anna N. A. Tosteson PhD2; Kenneth R. Meehan MD1
Affiliations: 1Transplant and Cellular Therapy Program, Section of Hematology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and the Dartmouth Cancer Center; 2The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Level 5, Williamson Building, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756
Funders: This study was sponsored by Dartmouth Cancer Center.
Address correspondence to:
Kenneth R. Meehan, MD
Transplant and Cellular Therapy Program
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and the Dartmouth Cancer Center
One Medical Center Drive
Lebanon, NH 03756
Email: kenneth.meehan@hitchcock.org
Disclosures: The authors reported no financial or other conflicts of interest.
Preliminary results of this research were reported in poster format at the Northern New England Clinical Oncology Society meeting (an ASCO state-affiliate) in November 2022 and at the ASH Annual Meeting & Exposition (December 2022).
References
1. U.S Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Guidance for Industry. Clinical/Medical. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Published 2009. Accessed September 2023. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf
2. Weldring T, Smith SM. Patient-reported outcomes (pros) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2013;6:61-68. doi:10.4137/HSI.S11093
3. Shaw BE, Syrjala KL, Onstad LE, et al. PROMIS measures can be used to assess symptoms and function in long-term hematopoietic cell transplantation survivors. Cancer. 2018;124(4):841-849. doi:10.1002/cncr.31089
4. Sidana S, Kumar S, Fraser R, et al. Impact of induction therapy with VRD versus VCD on outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma in partial response or better undergoing upfront autologous stem cell transplantation. Transplant Cell Ther. 2022;28(2):83.e1-83.e9. doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2021.10.022
5. Cusatis R, Flynn KE, Vasu S, et al. Adding centralized electronic patient-reported outcome data collection to an established international clinical outcomes registry. Transplant Cell Ther. 2022;28(2):112.e111-112.e119. doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2021.10.016
6. Biran N, Zhai W, Jensen RE, et al. Patient-reported outcomes following autologous stem cell transplant for patients with multiple myeloma. EJHaem. 2021;2(3):488-492. doi:10.1002/jha2.231
7. Bevans M, El-Jawahri A, Tierney DK, et al. National institutes of health hematopoietic cell transplantation late effects initiative: the patient-centered outcomes working group report. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017;23(4):538-551. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.09.011
8. Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(8):1305-1314. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x
9. Van Citters AD, Gifford AH, Brady C, et al. Formative evaluation of a dashboard to support coproduction of healthcare services in cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2020;19(5):768-776. doi:10.1016/j.jcf.2020.03.009
10. Van Citters AD, Holthoff MM, Kennedy AM, et al. Point-of-care dashboards promote coproduction of healthcare services for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Int J Qual Health Care. 2021;33(Supplement_2):ii40-ii47. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzab067
11. Batalden M, Batalden P, Margolis P, et al. Coproduction of healthcare service. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(7):509-517. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004315
12. Batalden P. Getting more health from healthcare: quality improvement must acknowledge patient coproduction—an essay by Paul Batalden. BMJ. 2018;362:k3617. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3617
13. Elwyn G, Nelson E, Hager A, Price A. Coproduction: when users define quality. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(9):711-716. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009830
14. Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, Wever LD, Aaronson NK. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(23):3027-3034. doi:10.1001/jama.288.23.3027
15. Pidala J, Anasetti C, Jim H. Quality of life after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2009;114(1):7-19. doi:10.1182/blood-2008-10-182592
16. Wood WA, Deal AM, Abernethy A, et al. Feasibility of frequent patient-reported outcome surveillance in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(3):450-459. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.014
17. Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):207-214. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061
18. Greene J, Hibbard JH, Sacks R, Overton V, Parrotta CD. When patient activation levels change, health outcomes and costs change, too. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(3):431-437. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0452
19. Bevans MF, Mitchell SA, Barrett JA, et al. Symptom distress predicts long-term health and well-being in allogeneic stem cell transplantation survivors. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(3):387-395. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.12.001
20. Hendriks MG, Schouten HC. Quality of life after stem cell transplantation: a patient, partner and physician perspective. Eur J Intern Med. 2002;13(1):52-56. doi:10.1016/s0953-6205(01)00198-4
21. Johnson LC, Melmed GY, Nelson EC, et al. Fostering collaboration through creation of an ibd learning health system. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(3):406-408. doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.9
22. Dixon-Woods M, Campbell A, Chang T, et al. A qualitative study of design stakeholders' views of developing and implementing a registry-based learning health system. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):16. doi:10.1186/s13012-020-0976-1
23. Wilson M, Van Citters A, Khayal I, et al. Designing an electronic point-of-care dashboard to support serious illness clinical visits: a multi-stakeholder coproduction project (TH341B). J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020;59(2):430-431. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.12.082
24. Mathew S, Mecchella J, Johnson L, et al. Pilot Testing Supports Utility of a Point-of-Care Dashboard to Enhance Patient and Clinician Partnerships in the Management of RA. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72. https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/pilot-testing-supports-utility-of-a-point-of-care-dashboard-to-enhance-patient-and-clinician-partnerships-in-the-management-of-ra/
25. Taxter A, Johnson L, Tabussi D, et al. Co-design of an electronic dashboard to support coproduction of care in pediatric rheumatic disease: human-centered design and usability testing. J Particip Med. 2022;14(1):e34735. doi:10.2196/34735
26. Birkmeyer NJ, Weinstein JN, Tosteson AN, et al. Design of the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT). Spine. 2002;27(12):1361-1372. doi:10.1097/00007632-200206150-00020
27. Weinstein JN, Brown PW, Hanscom B, Walsh T, Nelson EC. Designing an ambulatory clinical practice for outcomes improvement: from vision to reality--the Spine Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock, year one. Qual Manag Health Care. 2000;8(2):1-20. doi:10.1097/00019514-200008020-00003
28. Grulke N, Albani C, Bailer H. Quality of life in patients before and after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Core Questionnaire QLQ-C30. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(4):473-482. doi:10.1038/bmt.2011.107
29. Loberiza FR Jr, Rizzo JD, Bredeson CN, et al. Association of depressive syndrome and early deaths among patients after stem-cell transplantation for malignant diseases. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(8):2118-2126. doi:10.1200/JCO.2002.08.757
30. Garcia CM, Mumby PB, Thilges S, Stiff PJ. Comparison of early quality of life outcomes in autologous and allogeneic transplant patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(12):1577-1582. doi:10.1038/bmt.2012.77
31. Hjermstad MJ, Evensen SA, Kvaloy SO, Fayers PM, Kaasa S. Health-related quality of life 1 year after allogeneic or autologous stem-cell transplantation: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(2):706-718. doi:10.1200/JCO.1999.17.2.706
32. Jensen RE, Potosky AL, Moinpour CM, et al. United States population-based estimates of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system symptom and functional status reference values for individuals with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(17):1913-1920. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4410
33. Cheon J, Lee YJ, Jo JC, et al. Late complications and quality of life assessment for survivors receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(2):975-986. doi:10.1007/s00520-020-05572-0
34. Lee SJ, Joffe S, Kim HT, et al. Physicians' attitudes about quality-of-life issues in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2004;104(7):2194-2200. doi:10.1182/blood-2003-07-2430
35. Smith KC, Brundage MD, Tolbert E, et al. Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(10):4149-4157. doi:10.1007/s00520-016-3240-0
36. Hjermstad MJ, Knobel H, Brinch L, et al. A prospective study of health-related quality of life, fatigue, anxiety and depression 3-5 years after stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;34(3):257-266. doi:10.1038/sj.bmt.1704561
37. Campagnaro E, Saliba R, Giralt S, et al. Symptom burden after autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Cancer. 2008;112(7):1617-1624. doi:10.1002/cncr.23299
38. Morton LM, Hamilton BK. Using patient-reported outcomes to improve survivorship care. Blood. 2020;135(21):1819-1820. doi:10.1182/blood.2020005881
39. Zulman DM, Haverfield MC, Shaw JG, et al. Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter. JAMA. 2020;323(1):70-81. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.19003
40. Kowalski CP, McQuillan DB, Chawla N, et al. ‘The hand on the doorknob’: visit agenda setting by complex patients and their primary care physicians. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(1):29-37. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2018.01.170167
41. Shaw BE, Lee SJ, Horowitz MM, Wood WA, Rizzo JD, Flynn KE. Can we agree on patient-reported outcome measures for assessing hematopoietic cell transplantation patients? A study from the CIBMTR and BMT CTN. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(9):1173-1179. doi:10.1038/bmt.2016.113
42. Tyson SF, Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R. The influence of objective measurement tools on communication and clinical decision making in neurological rehabilitation. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(2):216-224. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01555.x
43. Sawatzky R, Kwon JY, Barclay R, et al. Implications of response shift for micro-, meso-, and macro-level healthcare decision-making using results of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(12):3343-3357. doi:10.1007/s11136-021-02766-9
44. Van Citters AD, Taxter AJ, Mathew SD, et al. Enhancing care partnerships using a rheumatology dashboard: bringing together what matters most to both patients and clinicians. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2023;5(4):190-200. doi:10.1002/acr2.11533
45. Sandblom L, Kapadia C, Vaidya V, et al. Electronic dashboard to improve outcomes in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2023:19322968231159401. doi:10.1177/19322968231159401
46. Gremyr A, Holmberg C, Thor J, Malm U, Gare BA, Andersson AC. How a point-of-care dashboard facilitates co-production of health care and health for and with individuals with psychotic disorders: a mixed-methods case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1599. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08992-2