The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners
- 15 September 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Supportive Care in Cancer
- Vol. 30 (2) , 1427-1439
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.Keywords
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancerEuropean Respiratory Journal, 2016
- Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled TrialJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2016
- News from the NIH: Person-centered outcomes measurement: NIH-supported measurement systems to evaluate self-assessed health, functional performance, and symptomatic toxicityTranslational Behavioral Medicine, 2015
- Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factorsAnnals of Oncology, 2015
- Integrating the Use of Patient‐Reported Outcomes for Both Clinical Practice and Performance Measurement: Views of Experts from 3 CountriesThe Milbank Quarterly, 2014
- The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative researchBMJ Quality & Safety, 2014
- Assessments of the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrumentHealth Expectations, 2013
- Article Commentary: Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)Health Services Insights, 2013
- The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic reviewBMC Health Services Research, 2012
- Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2004