Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/23885
Title: | The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners | Authors: | Cheung, Yin Ting Chan, Alexandre Charalambous, Andreas Darling, H. S. Eng, Lawson Grech, Lisa Van Den Hurk, Corina J.G. Kirk, Deborah Mitchell, Sandra A. Poprawski, Dagmara Rammant, Elke Ramsey, Imogen Fitch, Margaret I. Chan, Raymond J. |
Major Field of Science: | Medical and Health Sciences | Field Category: | Clinical Medicine | Keywords: | PRO;PROM;Patient-centered care;Patient-reported outcome measures;Patient-reported outcomes | Issue Date: | 1-Feb-2022 | Source: | Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1427-1439 | Volume: | 30 | Issue: | 2 | Start page: | 1427 | End page: | 1439 | Journal: | Supportive Care in Cancer | 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. | URI: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/23885 | ISSN: | 14337339 | DOI: | 10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7 | Rights: | © The Author(s) | Type: | Article | Affiliation : | The Chinese University of Hong Kong University of California Cyprus University of Technology University of Turku Command Hospital Air Force University of Toronto Monash University University of Melbourne Swinburne University of Technology Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation Edith Cowan University National Cancer Institute King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre Ghent University University of South Australia Flinders University |
Publication Type: | Peer Reviewed |
Appears in Collections: | Άρθρα/Articles |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cheung2022_Article_TheUseOfPatient-reportedOutcom.pdf | Fulltext | 737.23 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
CORE Recommender
SCOPUSTM
Citations
14
checked on Feb 2, 2024
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
7
Last Week
0
0
Last month
1
1
checked on Oct 29, 2023
Page view(s)
297
Last Week
0
0
Last month
3
3
checked on Nov 6, 2024
Download(s)
348
checked on Nov 6, 2024
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License