1840P - Ready for digital health? A national mirror survey exploring the perspectives of both patients and healthcare professionals

Background

Management of patients with cancer is evolving. A better knowledge of barriers and opportunities of Digital Health solutions (DH) is needed to increase their implementation into routine cancer care practice.

Methods

A national quantitative prospective digital mirror-survey was carried out by the French-speaking Association for Supportive Oncology Care (AFSOS) among patients coping with cancer and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in cancer care. Survey was made available to patients through physicians, hospital nurses, patient groups and social networks and approved from an Institutional Review Board. Anonymized data from patients and healthcare professionals were collected using the LimeSurvey software platform.

Results

A total of 2660 patients, of which 53% had a localized disease[HD1], and 1259 HCPs completed the survey, including 275 oncologists (out of 544 physicians), 456 nurses (including 81 nurse practitioners). While 89% of HCPs mentioned phone and 32% digital platforms as available options for patients to relay information about their symptoms, adverse effects, and support needs, only 43% had implemented such platforms in their institutions. 55% and 19.5% of HCPs respectively estimated that remote monitoring in place addressed the needs for patients under oral therapies and for patients in clinical trials.[HD2] Although 63% of patients expressed their interest in using DH, 46.5% of patients communicate by phone, and 15.4% use a digital platform. Additionally, 39.3% of patients felt to have no means to communicate outside of consultations or hospitalization. While 68.2%, 66.2% and 65.1% of patients respectively declared obtaining answers to questions between consultations, generating alerts for the healthcare team, and continuously monitoring their condition to be very useful, professionals prioritized generating alerts for the healthcare team (69.5%), reminding patients of necessary steps in dealing with complications (69.1%) and monitoring (64%). Comparison across tumors, HCP and institution types will be provided.

Conclusions

Emphasizing a value-driven approach is crucial for creating appealing digital platforms and their successful integration into supportive care.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

F. Scotté.

Funding

Gilead.

Disclosure

F. Scotté: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Meetings: Leo Pharma; Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, symposia: Amgen, MSD, Thermofisher, BMS, Pfizer, MundiPharma, Tilray; Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Pierre Fabre Oncology, Clovis Oncology, Gilead, Grünenthal, Pharmanovia; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Viatris-Mylan, Viforpharma, Helsinn, Chugai, Sanofi, Sandoz, GSK; Non-Financial Interests, Other, member of faculty for supportive and palliative care: ESMO; Non-Financial Interests, Member of Board of Directors: MASCC, AFSOS. M. di Palma: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Bayer, Sandoz, Pierre fabre, Fresenius, Gilead, Roche; Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Advisory Board: Beigene, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi; Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: Resilience. C. Migala: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Roche, Pfizer. C. Cerisey: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Galapagos. H. Drevot, V. Labonne: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Advisory Board: Roche, Novartis, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novo Nordisk. D. Mayeur: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Ipsen, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Thermofisher. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.