Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Supportive Care in Cancer 2/2022

15.09.2021 | Original Article

The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners

verfasst von: Yin Ting Cheung, Alexandre Chan, Andreas Charalambous, H. S. Darling, Lawson Eng, Lisa Grech, Corina J. G. van den Hurk, Deborah Kirk, Sandra A. Mitchell, Dagmara Poprawski, Elke Rammant, Imogen Ramsey, Margaret I. Fitch, Raymond J. Chan

Erschienen in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners’ experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care.

Methods

Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings.

Results

In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia–Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as “high frequency users” who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier.

Conclusions

Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Howell D, Molloy S, Wilkinson K et al (2015) Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol 26(9):1846–1858CrossRefPubMed Howell D, Molloy S, Wilkinson K et al (2015) Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol 26(9):1846–1858CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Weldring T, Smith SMS (2013) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights 6:61–68PubMedPubMedCentral Weldring T, Smith SMS (2013) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights 6:61–68PubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Graupner C, Breukink SO, Mul S, Claessens D, Slok AHM, Kimman ML (2021) Patient-reported outcome measures in oncology: a qualitative study of the healthcare professional’s perspective. Support Care Cancer 29(9):5253–5261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Graupner C, Breukink SO, Mul S, Claessens D, Slok AHM, Kimman ML (2021) Patient-reported outcome measures in oncology: a qualitative study of the healthcare professional’s perspective. Support Care Cancer 29(9):5253–5261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J (2014) The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf 23(6):508–518CrossRefPubMed Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J (2014) The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf 23(6):508–518CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Absolom K, Warrington L, Hudson E et al (2021) Phase III randomized controlled trial of eRAPID: eHealth intervention during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 39(7):734–747CrossRefPubMed Absolom K, Warrington L, Hudson E et al (2021) Phase III randomized controlled trial of eRAPID: eHealth intervention during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 39(7):734–747CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC et al (2017) Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 318(2):197–198CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC et al (2017) Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 318(2):197–198CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Zurück zum Zitat 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(6):557–565CrossRefPubMed 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(6):557–565CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Denis F, Basch E, Septans A et al (2019) Two-year survival comparing web-based symptom monitoring vs routine surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. JAMA 321(3):306–307CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Denis F, Basch E, Septans A et al (2019) Two-year survival comparing web-based symptom monitoring vs routine surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. JAMA 321(3):306–307CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lloyd H, Wheat H, Horrell J et al (2018) Patient-reported measures for person-centered coordinated care: a comparative domain map and web-based compendium for supporting policy development and implementation. J Med Internet Res 20(2):e54–e54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lloyd H, Wheat H, Horrell J et al (2018) Patient-reported measures for person-centered coordinated care: a comparative domain map and web-based compendium for supporting policy development and implementation. J Med Internet Res 20(2):e54–e54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Øvretveit J, Zubkoff L, Nelson EC, Frampton S, Knudsen JL, Zimlichman E (2017) Using patient-reported outcome measurement to improve patient care. Int J Qual Health Care 29(6):874–879CrossRefPubMed Øvretveit J, Zubkoff L, Nelson EC, Frampton S, Knudsen JL, Zimlichman E (2017) Using patient-reported outcome measurement to improve patient care. Int J Qual Health Care 29(6):874–879CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Foster A, Foster A, Croot L et al (2018) The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2(1):1–16CrossRef Foster A, Foster A, Croot L et al (2018) The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2(1):1–16CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Nicole M, Doris H, Zahra I et al (2020) Selecting, implementing and evaluating patient-reported outcome measures for routine clinical use in cancer: the Cancer Care Ontario approach. J Patient Rep Outcomes 4(1):101CrossRef Nicole M, Doris H, Zahra I et al (2020) Selecting, implementing and evaluating patient-reported outcome measures for routine clinical use in cancer: the Cancer Care Ontario approach. J Patient Rep Outcomes 4(1):101CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Duncan EAS, Murray J (2012) The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 12:96CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Duncan EAS, Murray J (2012) The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 12:96CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Basch E, Barbera L, Kerrigan CL, Velikova G (2018) Implementation of patient-reported outcomes in routine medical care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 38:122–134CrossRefPubMed Basch E, Barbera L, Kerrigan CL, Velikova G (2018) Implementation of patient-reported outcomes in routine medical care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 38:122–134CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Nguyen H, Butow P, Dhillon H, Sundaresan P (2021) A review of the barriers to using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care. J Med Radiat Sci 68(2):186–195CrossRefPubMed Nguyen H, Butow P, Dhillon H, Sundaresan P (2021) A review of the barriers to using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care. J Med Radiat Sci 68(2):186–195CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat van der Wees PJ, Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden MW, Ayanian JZ, Black N, Westert GP, Schneider EC (2014) Integrating the use of patient–reported outcomes for both clinical practice and performance measurement: views of experts from 3 countries. Milbank Q 92(4):754–75CrossRef van der Wees PJ, Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden MW, Ayanian JZ, Black N, Westert GP, Schneider EC (2014) Integrating the use of patient–reported outcomes for both clinical practice and performance measurement: views of experts from 3 countries. Milbank Q 92(4):754–75CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Yang L, Yang L, Manhas D et al (2018) Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Support Care Cancer 26(1):41–60CrossRefPubMed Yang L, Yang L, Manhas D et al (2018) Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Support Care Cancer 26(1):41–60CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Nic Giolla Easpaig B, Tran Y, Bierbaum M et al (2020) What are the attitudes of health professionals regarding patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in oncology practice? A mixed-method synthesis of the qualitative evidence. BMC Health Serv Res 20(1):102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nic Giolla Easpaig B, Tran Y, Bierbaum M et al (2020) What are the attitudes of health professionals regarding patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in oncology practice? A mixed-method synthesis of the qualitative evidence. BMC Health Serv Res 20(1):102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Brundage MD, Snyder CF (2012) Patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: using standards to break down barriers. Clin Investig 2(4):343–346CrossRef Brundage MD, Snyder CF (2012) Patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: using standards to break down barriers. Clin Investig 2(4):343–346CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Selby P, Velikova G (2018) Taking patient reported outcomes centre stage in cancer research – why has it taken so long? Res Involv Engagem 4(1):1–5CrossRef Selby P, Velikova G (2018) Taking patient reported outcomes centre stage in cancer research – why has it taken so long? Res Involv Engagem 4(1):1–5CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6(3):e34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6(3):e34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Williams K, Sansoni J, Morris D, Grootemaat P, Thompson C (2016) Patient-reported outcome measures: Literature review. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Sydney Williams K, Sansoni J, Morris D, Grootemaat P, Thompson C (2016) Patient-reported outcome measures: Literature review. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Sydney
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Chan EKH, Edwards TC, Haywood K et al (2019) Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a companion guide to the ISOQOL user’s guide. Qual Life Res 28(3):621–627CrossRefPubMed Chan EKH, Edwards TC, Haywood K et al (2019) Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a companion guide to the ISOQOL user’s guide. Qual Life Res 28(3):621–627CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Mak KS, van Bommel Annelotte C. M, Stowell C et al (2016) Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer. Eur Respir J 48(3):852–60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mak KS, van Bommel Annelotte C. M, Stowell C et al (2016) Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer. Eur Respir J 48(3):852–60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Zerillo JA, Schouwenburg MG, van Bommel ACM et al (2017) An international collaborative standardizing a comprehensive patient-centered outcomes measurement set for colorectal cancer. JAMA Oncol 3(5):686–694CrossRefPubMed Zerillo JA, Schouwenburg MG, van Bommel ACM et al (2017) An international collaborative standardizing a comprehensive patient-centered outcomes measurement set for colorectal cancer. JAMA Oncol 3(5):686–694CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Ahmed S, Barbera L, Bartlett SJ et al (2020) A catalyst for transforming health systems and person-centred care: Canadian national position statement on patient-reported outcomes. Curr Oncol 27(2):90–99CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ahmed S, Barbera L, Bartlett SJ et al (2020) A catalyst for transforming health systems and person-centred care: Canadian national position statement on patient-reported outcomes. Curr Oncol 27(2):90–99CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Couet N, Desroches S, Robitaille H et al (2015) Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expect 18(4):542–561CrossRefPubMed Couet N, Desroches S, Robitaille H et al (2015) Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expect 18(4):542–561CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Hussain A, Sial MS, Usman SM et al (2019) What factors affect patient satisfaction in public sector hospitals: evidence from an emerging economy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(6):994CrossRefPubMedCentral Hussain A, Sial MS, Usman SM et al (2019) What factors affect patient satisfaction in public sector hospitals: evidence from an emerging economy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(6):994CrossRefPubMedCentral
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Kugbey N, Oppong Asante K, Meyer-Weitz A (2019) Doctor–patient relationship mediates the effects of shared decision making on health-related quality of life among women living with breast cancer. S Afr J Psychol 49(3):364–375CrossRef Kugbey N, Oppong Asante K, Meyer-Weitz A (2019) Doctor–patient relationship mediates the effects of shared decision making on health-related quality of life among women living with breast cancer. S Afr J Psychol 49(3):364–375CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Sun N, Rau PP (2017) Barriers to improve physician-patient communication in a primary care setting: perspectives of Chinese physicians. Health Psychol Behav Med 5(1):166–176CrossRef Sun N, Rau PP (2017) Barriers to improve physician-patient communication in a primary care setting: perspectives of Chinese physicians. Health Psychol Behav Med 5(1):166–176CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith A, Smith A, Mitchell S et al (2016) Person-centered outcomes measurement: NIH-supported measurement systems to evaluate self-assessed health, functional performance, and symptomatic toxicity. Behav Med Pract Policy Res 6(3):470–474CrossRef Smith A, Smith A, Mitchell S et al (2016) Person-centered outcomes measurement: NIH-supported measurement systems to evaluate self-assessed health, functional performance, and symptomatic toxicity. Behav Med Pract Policy Res 6(3):470–474CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Hall E, Hall E, Tam E et al (2019) Development and prospective evaluation of CAPLET, a cancer ambulatory patient physical function longitudinal evaluation tool for routine clinical practice. Support Care Cancer 27(2):521–530CrossRefPubMed Hall E, Hall E, Tam E et al (2019) Development and prospective evaluation of CAPLET, a cancer ambulatory patient physical function longitudinal evaluation tool for routine clinical practice. Support Care Cancer 27(2):521–530CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners
verfasst von
Yin Ting Cheung
Alexandre Chan
Andreas Charalambous
H. S. Darling
Lawson Eng
Lisa Grech
Corina J. G. van den Hurk
Deborah Kirk
Sandra A. Mitchell
Dagmara Poprawski
Elke Rammant
Imogen Ramsey
Margaret I. Fitch
Raymond J. Chan
Publikationsdatum
15.09.2021
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2022

Supportive Care in Cancer 2/2022 Zur Ausgabe

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

29.05.2024 Larynxkarzinom Nachrichten

Fast ein Viertel der Personen mit mäßig dysplastischen Stimmlippenläsionen entwickelt einen Kehlkopftumor. Solche Personen benötigen daher eine besonders enge ärztliche Überwachung.

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

29.05.2024 Urothelkarzinom Nachrichten

Ob Patienten und Patientinnen mit neu diagnostiziertem Blasenkrebs ein Jahr später Bedauern über die Therapieentscheidung empfinden, wird einer Studie aus England zufolge von der Radikalität und dem Erfolg des Eingriffs beeinflusst.

Erhöhtes Risiko fürs Herz unter Checkpointhemmer-Therapie

28.05.2024 Nebenwirkungen der Krebstherapie Nachrichten

Kardiotoxische Nebenwirkungen einer Therapie mit Immuncheckpointhemmern mögen selten sein – wenn sie aber auftreten, wird es für Patienten oft lebensgefährlich. Voruntersuchung und Monitoring sind daher obligat.

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

28.05.2024 Onkologische Immuntherapie Nachrichten

„Kalte“ Tumoren werden heiß – CD28-kostimulatorische Antikörper sollen dies ermöglichen. Am besten könnten diese in Kombination mit BiTEs und Checkpointhemmern wirken. Erste klinische Studien laufen bereits.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.