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 " />
Display options
Cite
Cheung YT, Chan A, Charalambous A, et al. The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners. Support Care Cancer. 2021;30(2):1427-1439doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7.
Cheung, Y. T., Chan, A., Charalambous, A., Darling, H. S., Eng, L., Grech, L., van den Hurk, C. J. G., Kirk, D., Mitchell, S. A., Poprawski, D., Rammant, E., Ramsey, I., Fitch, M. I., & Chan, R. J. (2022). The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 30(2), 1427-1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7
Cheung, Yin Ting, et al. "The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners." Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer vol. 30,2 (2022): 1427-1439. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7
Cheung YT, Chan A, Charalambous A, Darling HS, Eng L, Grech L, van den Hurk CJG, Kirk D, Mitchell SA, Poprawski D, Rammant E, Ramsey I, Fitch MI, Chan RJ. The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners. Support Care Cancer. 2022 Feb;30(2):1427-1439. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7. Epub 2021 Sep 15. PMID: 34524527; PMCID: PMC8440726.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Support Care Cancer. 2022 Feb;30(2):1427-1439. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7. Epub 2021 Sep 15.

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

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

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

Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
  2. School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Clinical Pharmacy Practice, University of California, Irvine, LA, USA.
  3. Department of Nursing, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus.
  4. Department of Nursing, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
  5. Department of Medical Oncology, Command Hospital Air Force, Bangalore, India.
  6. Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Department of Medicine, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  7. School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Medicine Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
  8. Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  9. Health Sciences, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia.
  10. Department of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
  11. R&D Department, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  12. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.
  13. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
  14. Department of Oncology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
  15. Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
  16. Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
  17. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 207 Chisholm Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada. [email protected].
  18. Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia. [email protected].

PMID: 34524527 PMCID: PMC8440726 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7

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.

© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Keywords: PRO; PROM; Patient-centered care; Patient-reported outcome measures; Patient-reported outcomes

References

  1. 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):1846–1858 - PubMed
  2. Weldring T, Smith SMS (2013) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights 6:61–68 - PubMed
  3. 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):5253–5261 - PubMed
  4. Greenhalgh J, Dalkin S, Gooding K et al (2017) Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 5.2.) Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK409450/ ,  https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr05020 - PubMed
  5. 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):508–518 - PubMed
  6. 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):734–747 - PubMed
  7. 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):197–198 - PubMed
  8. 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):557–565 - PubMed
  9. 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):306–307 - PubMed
  10. 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–e54 - PubMed
  11. 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):874–879 - PubMed
  12. 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):1–16 - PubMed
  13. 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):101 - PubMed
  14. 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 12:96 - PubMed
  15. Basch E, Barbera L, Kerrigan CL, Velikova G (2018) Implementation of patient-reported outcomes in routine medical care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 38:122–134 - PubMed
  16. 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):186–195 - PubMed
  17. 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):754–75 - PubMed
  18. 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):41–60 - PubMed
  19. 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):102 - PubMed
  20. Brundage MD, Snyder CF (2012) Patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: using standards to break down barriers. Clin Investig 2(4):343–346 - PubMed
  21. 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):1–5 - PubMed
  22. 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):e34 - PubMed
  23. National Institutes of Health. PROMIS® (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system. URL: http://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis . Accessed 15 Feb 2021 - PubMed
  24. 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 - PubMed
  25. International society for quality of life research (prepared by Aaronson N, Elliott T, Greenhalgh J, Halyard M, Hess R, Miller D, Reeve B, Santana M, Snyder C). User’s guide to implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice, version: January 2015. URL: https://Www.isoqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2015UsersGuide-Version2.pdf . Accessed 15 Feb 2021 - PubMed
  26. Ali J, Basch E, Baumhauer J, et al (2017) Users’ guide to integrating patient-reported outcomes in electronic health records. Johns Hopkins University. URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/118679 . Accessed 15 Feb 2021 - PubMed
  27. 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):621–627 - PubMed
  28. 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):852–60 - PubMed
  29. 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):686–694 - PubMed
  30. 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):90–99 - PubMed
  31. Stover AM, Haverman L, van Oers HA et al (2020) Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Qual Life Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9 - PubMed
  32. 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):542–561 - PubMed
  33. 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):994 - PubMed
  34. 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):364–375 - PubMed
  35. 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):166–176 - PubMed
  36. 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):470–474 - PubMed
  37. 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):521–530 - PubMed

Publication Types