Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/23885
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCheung, Yin Ting-
dc.contributor.authorChan, Alexandre-
dc.contributor.authorCharalambous, Andreas-
dc.contributor.authorDarling, H. S.-
dc.contributor.authorEng, Lawson-
dc.contributor.authorGrech, Lisa-
dc.contributor.authorVan Den Hurk, Corina J.G.-
dc.contributor.authorKirk, Deborah-
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, Sandra A.-
dc.contributor.authorPoprawski, Dagmara-
dc.contributor.authorRammant, Elke-
dc.contributor.authorRamsey, Imogen-
dc.contributor.authorFitch, Margaret I.-
dc.contributor.authorChan, Raymond J.-
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-04T08:49:41Z-
dc.date.available2022-02-04T08:49:41Z-
dc.date.issued2022-02-01-
dc.identifier.citationSupportive Care in Cancer, 2022, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1427-1439en_US
dc.identifier.issn14337339-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/23885-
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofSupportive Care in Canceren_US
dc.rights© The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectPROen_US
dc.subjectPROMen_US
dc.subjectPatient-centered careen_US
dc.subjectPatient-reported outcome measuresen_US
dc.subjectPatient-reported outcomesen_US
dc.titleThe use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitionersen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationThe Chinese University of Hong Kongen_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Californiaen_US
dc.collaborationCyprus University of Technologyen_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Turkuen_US
dc.collaborationCommand Hospital Air Forceen_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Torontoen_US
dc.collaborationMonash Universityen_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Melbourneen_US
dc.collaborationSwinburne University of Technologyen_US
dc.collaborationPeter MacCallum Cancer Centreen_US
dc.collaborationNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisationen_US
dc.collaborationEdith Cowan Universityen_US
dc.collaborationNational Cancer Instituteen_US
dc.collaborationKing Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centreen_US
dc.collaborationGhent Universityen_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of South Australiaen_US
dc.collaborationFlinders Universityen_US
dc.subject.categoryClinical Medicineen_US
dc.journalsOpen Accessen_US
dc.countryChinaen_US
dc.countryUnited Statesen_US
dc.countryCyprusen_US
dc.countryFinlanden_US
dc.countryIndiaen_US
dc.countryCanadaen_US
dc.countryAustraliaen_US
dc.countryNetherlandsen_US
dc.countrySaudi Arabiaen_US
dc.countryBelgiumen_US
dc.subject.fieldMedical and Health Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7en_US
dc.identifier.pmid34524527-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85115254618-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85115254618-
dc.relation.issue2en_US
dc.relation.volume30en_US
cut.common.academicyear2021-2022en_US
dc.identifier.spage1427en_US
dc.identifier.epage1439en_US
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.journal.journalissn1433-7339-
crisitem.journal.publisherSpringer Nature-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Nursing-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Health Sciences-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-4050-031X-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Health Sciences-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
Cheung2022_Article_TheUseOfPatient-reportedOutcom.pdfFulltext737.23 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

14
checked on Feb 2, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

7
Last Week
0
Last month
1
checked on Oct 29, 2023

Page view(s)

297
Last Week
0
Last month
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 Creative Commons