What are the attitudes of health professionals regarding patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in oncology practice? A mixed-method synthesis of the qualitative evidence

Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

Patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) have gained widespread support as a mechanism to improve healthcare quality. We aimed to map out key enablers and barriers influencing PROMs implementation strategies in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

An umbrella review was conducted to identify reviews exploring enablers and barriers related to the integration of PROMs in routine clinical practice from January 2000 to June 2023. Information on key enablers and barriers was extracted and summarised thematically according to the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

34 reviews met our criteria for inclusion. Identified reviews highlighted barriers such as limited PROMs awareness among clinicians and patients, perceived low value by clinicians and patients, PROMs that were too complex or difficult for patients to complete, poor usability of PROMs systems, delayed feedback of PROMs data, clinician concerns related to use of PROMs as a performance management tool, patient concerns regarding privacy and security, and resource constraints. Enablers encompassed phased implementation, professional training, stakeholder engagement prior to implementation, clear strategies and goals, 'change champions' to support PROMs implementation, systems to respond to issues raised by PROMs, and integration into patient pathways. No consensus favoured paper or electronic PROMs, yet offering both options to mitigate digital literacy bias and integrating PROMs into electronic health records emerged as important facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

The sustainable implementation of PROMs is a complex process that requires multicomponent organisational strategies covering training and guidance, necessary time and resources, roles and responsibilities, and consultation with patients and clinicians.

Are all cancer survivors included when using electronically administered patient reported outcomes in primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are being used frequently in clinical practice. PROs often serve several purposes, such as increasing patient involvement, assessing health status, and monitoring and improving the quality-of-care at an aggregated level. However, the lack of representative PRO-data may have implications for all these purposes. This study aims to assess the association of non-administration of (not sending an electronic invite to PRO) and non-response to (not responding to PRO) electronically administered PROs with social inequality in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting. Furthermore, it examines whether the workflows surrounding PRO have an impact on non-administration and non-response.

METHODS

This is a cross sectional study using routinely collected data from electronic health records and registers including cancer survivors (CSs) over 18 years booked for an initial consultation in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting using PROs for systematic health status assessment. During the study period two different PRO platforms were used, each associated with different workflows. Non-administration and non-response rates were calculated for sociodemographic characteristics for each PRO platform. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 1868 (platform 1) and 1446 (platform 2) CSCSs were booked for an initial consultation. Of these, 233 (12.5%) (platform 1) and 283 (19.6%) (platform 2) were not sent a PRO (non-administration). Among those who received a PRO, 157 (9.6%) on platform 1 and 140 (12.0%) on platform 2 did not respond (non-response). Non-administration of and non-response to PROs were significantly associated with lower socioeconomic status. Moreover, the workflows surrounding PROs seem to have an impact on non-inclusion in and non-response to PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-administration of and non-response to PROs in clinical practice is associated with determinants of social inequality. Clinical workflows and the PRO platforms used may potentially worsen this inequality. It is important to consider these implications when using PROs at both the individual and aggregated levels. A key aspect of implementing PROs in clinical practice is the ongoing focus on representativeness, including a focus on monitoring PRO administration and response.

Symptom Patterning Across the Cancer Care Trajectory for Patients Receiving Chemoradiation for Head and Neck Cancer: A Retrospective Longitudinal Study Using Latent Transition Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) experience a multitude of symptoms because of the tumor and its treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the symptom patterns present in cancer treatment and survivorship periods for patients with HNC using latent class analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective longitudinal chart review was conducted to examine symptoms reported by patients who received concurrent chemoradiation for HNC in a regional Northeastern United States cancer institute. Latent class analysis was performed to identify the latent classes present across multiple timepoints during treatment and survivorship for the most commonly reported symptoms.

RESULTS

In 275 patients with HNC, the latent transition analysis revealed 3 latent classes for both treatment and survivorship periods: (1) mild, (2) moderate, and (3) severe symptoms. Patients were more likely to report a greater number of symptoms in a more severe latent class. During treatment, moderate and severe classes had representation of all most common symptoms: pain, mucositis, taste alterations, xerostomia, dysphagia, and fatigue. Different symptom patterns emerged for survivorship, with prominence of taste alterations and xerostomia across all classes, and all symptoms present in the severe class. The probability of symptom expression varied more in the survivorship period compared with the treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients reported numerous symptoms during active treatment persisting into survivorship. Patients tended to transition to more severe symptomatology as treatment progressed and to more moderate symptomatology as survivorship evolved.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Examining the trend of persistent moderate symptomatology into survivorship is useful to optimize symptom management.

The feasibility and acceptability of collecting psychosocial outcome measures embedded within a precision medicine trial for childhood cancer

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are increasingly being collected within cancer clinical trials, yet limited literature on the feasibility and acceptability of doing so.

METHODS

We collected parent-proxy and adolescent (≥12 years old) PROMs through a longitudinal, psychosocial sub-study ('PRISM-Impact') embedded in a precision medicine trial for children with poor prognosis cancer ('PRISM'). We report on feasibility (response, participation, and attrition rates; follow-up and responding to elevated distress) and acceptability (parents' perceived benefit/burden of participation; and impact on decision to participate in PRISM) of PRISM-Impact.

RESULTS

Over the reporting period, 462 families were eligible for PRISM-Impact. Family and adolescent response rates were 53% and 45%, respectively. Parents whose child had relapsed were more likely to participate in PRISM-Impact than parents whose child had not (p < 0.001). Parent and adolescent attrition rates were 30% and 56% respectively. We conducted 478 calls for intake and to follow-up on missing questionnaires, and 122 calls to respond to elevated distress. Parents reported wanting to participate in PRISM-Impact for altruistic reasons and because they valued psychosocial research. Parents reported little-to-no burden and some benefit from participating in PRISM-Impact, with little change in ratings overtime. Most parents felt that participating in PRISM-Impact did not impact their desire to participate in PRISM (72%), with some feeling more eager to participate (19%).

CONCLUSIONS

PRISM-Impact response rates were comparable to other psycho-oncology studies, despite the poor prognosis population. Integration of PROMs within a paediatric oncology trial is acceptable to parents, and may provide a more comprehensive assessment of the impact of trial participation.

Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey

PURPOSE

Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables.

RESULTS

Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level.

CONCLUSION

Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

Exploring patients' experience using PROMs within routine post-discharge follow-up assessment after stroke: a mixed methods approach

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) are being used increasingly to measure health problems in stroke clinical practice. However, the implementation of these PROMs in routine stroke care is still in its infancy. To understand the value of PROMs used in ischemic stroke care, we explored the patients' experience with PROMs and with the consultation at routine post-discharge follow-up after stroke.

METHODS

In this prospective mixed methods study, patients with ischemic stroke completed an evaluation questionnaire about the use of PROMs and about their consultation in two Dutch hospitals. Additionally, telephone interviews were held to gain in-depth information about their experience with PROMs.

RESULTS

In total, 63 patients completed the evaluation questionnaire of which 10 patients were also interviewed. Most patients (82.2-96.6%) found completing the PROMs to be feasible and relevant. Half the patients (49.2-51.6%) considered the PROMs useful for the consultation and most patients (87.3-96.8%) reported the consultation as a positive experience. Completing the PROMs provided 51.6% of the patients with insight into their stroke-related problems. Almost 75% of the patients found the PROMs useful in giving the healthcare provider greater insight, and 60% reported discussing the PROM results during the consultation. Interviewed patients reported the added value of PROMs, particularly when arranging further care, in gaining a broader insight into the problems, and in ensuring all important topics were discussed during the consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Completing PROMs appears to be feasible for patients with stroke attending post-discharge consultation; the vast majority of patients experienced added value for themselves or the healthcare provider. We recommend that healthcare providers discuss the PROM results with their patients to improve the value of PROMs for the patient. This could also improve the willingness to complete PROMs in the future.

"My body is a cage": A qualitative investigation into the self-discrepancy experiences of young women with metastatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

The current study investigated self-discrepancy experiences of young women with metastatic cancer.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed through interpretative phenomenological analysis.

FINDINGS

Eight female patients with metastatic cancer aged between 27 and 38 years formed the sample. Three superordinate themes emerged: (1) compulsory changes in self-concept with ambivalent evaluations; (2) new ideals not on the agenda of a healthy young woman; and (3) so-called 'minimalist' expectations from others.

DISCUSSION

Findings indicated that diagnosis and treatment of metastatic cancer impose unique developmental challenges for young adult women. Advanced cancer disrupted the tasks and responsibilities of young adulthood, resulting in frustration, grief, isolation, and overcompensation. These findings suggest that a developmental perspective is crucial when working with self-discrepancy experiences of young women with metastatic cancer.

The value of using patient-reported outcomes for health screening during long-term follow-up after paediatric stem cell transplantation for nonmalignant diseases

INTRODUCTION

The assessment of using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within comprehensive care follow-up programmes, specifically focused on health screening, remains largely unexplored. PROs were implemented in our late effects and comprehensive care programme after paediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant diseases. The programme focuses solely on screening of physical and mental health and on discussing PROs during the consultation.

METHODS

The primary method of this study was semistructured interviews to explore the perspective of both patients and healthcare providers' (HCP) on the use of PROs, which were thematically analyzed. Additionally, an explorative quantitative approach with patient-reported experience measures (PREMS) was used, with a pretest-posttest design, to assess whether the use of PROs was accompanied by more patient-centred care.

RESULTS

From the patient-interviews (N = 15) four themes were extracted: use of PROs (1) help to discuss topics; (2) make the patients feel understood; (3) create a moment of self-reflection; and (4) make consultations more efficient. Pre- and postimplementation analysis of PREMs (N = 40) did not show significant differences in terms of patient-centeredness.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate the added value of integrating PROs for health screening purposes within the long-term follow-up programme after paediatric HSCT, as perceived by both patient and HCP. With the active use of PROs, patients are stimulated to consciously assess their health status.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

This study included patients as participants. Caregivers were approached if patients were below a certain age. Additionally, preliminary results were shared with all patients (including nonparticipants) during a patient conference day.

The use of outcome data in patient consultations from the healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perspectives on the use of outcome data in consultations and to understand which aggregated outcomes patients find important.

METHODS

This study had a mixed-methods design and consisted of two steps: RESULTS: HCPs indicated that aggregated outcome data are not routinely used in consultations. They pointed out various barriers to using outcome data, e.g., low response rates of PROMs, and suggested actions to address these barriers, including training of HCPs in outcome data usage. Patients rated the majority of aggregated outcomes as important, although preferences differed between the studied health conditions.

CONCLUSION

Both HCPs and patients underscored the importance of discussing outcome data in consultations. Nevertheless, HCPs encountered several barriers to using outcome data. Furthermore, patients with different health conditions have somewhat different information needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study identified several actionable steps to enhance the collection and application of outcome data in consultations.

Involving Patients and Clinicians in the Design of Wireframes for Cancer Medicines Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Care: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment is a key component of health care systems, and the increasing number of cancer medicines is expanding the treatment landscape. However, evidence of the impact on patients has been focused more on chemotherapy toxicity and symptom control and less on the effect of cancer medicines more broadly on patients' lives. Evolving electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) presents the opportunity to secure early engagement of patients and clinicians in shaping the collection of quality-of-life metrics and presenting these data to better support the patient-clinician decision-making process.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to obtain initial feedback from patients and clinicians on the wireframes of a digital solution (patient app and clinician dashboard) for the collection and use of cancer medicines ePROMs.

METHODS

We adopted a 2-stage, mixed methods approach. Stage 1 (March to June 2019) consisted of interviews and focus groups with cancer clinicians and patients with cancer to explore the face validity of the wireframes, informed by the technology acceptance model constructs (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intention to use). In stage 2 (October 2019 to February 2020), the revised wireframes were assessed through web-based, adapted technology acceptance model questionnaires. Qualitative data (stage 1) underwent a framework analysis, and descriptive statistics were performed on quantitative data (stage 2). Clinicians and patients with cancer were recruited from NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, the largest health board in Scotland.

RESULTS

A total of 14 clinicians and 19 patients participated in a combination of stage 1 interviews and focus groups. Clinicians and patients indicated that the wireframes of a patient app and clinician dashboard for the collection of cancer medicines ePROMs would be easy to use and could focus discussions, and they would be receptive to using such tools in the future. In stage 1, clinicians raised the potential impact on workload, and both groups identified the need for adequate IT skills to use each technology. Changes to the wireframes were made, and in stage 2, clinicians (n=8) and patients (n=16) indicated it was "quite likely" that the technologies would be easy to use and they would be "quite likely" to use them in the future. Notably, clinicians indicated that they would use the dashboard to enable treatment decisions "with around half" of their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the importance of consulting both patients and clinicians in the design of digital solutions. The wireframes were perceived positively by patients and clinicians who were willing to use such technologies if available in the future as part of routine care. However, challenges were raised, and some differences were identified between participant groups, which warrant further research.

The use of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes in follow-up after palliative radiotherapy: A survey study in Belgium

Objective

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) could be used to monitor patients' symptoms after treatment. However, ePROM implementation in clinical practice has been challenging, especially in (palliative) radiation oncology. The aim of this study was to explore the opinions of healthcare providers (HCP) active in radiation oncology in Belgium on the use of ePROMs for symptom follow-up after palliative radiotherapy.

Methods

An anonymous online survey was conducted with different HCP in radiation oncology in Belgium. Participants were recruited through several professional organizations with approximately 390 members actively working in the field of radiation oncology. The survey used was a self-developed questionnaire, based on existing literature on implementation of (e)PROMs in cancer care, our previous research on this topic as well as our personal experience in the field of oncology and palliative care.

Results

Of the 128 respondents, 26% had experience with ePROMs in clinical practice. Eighty-four percent considered ePROMs beneficial for patients' health and symptom knowledge, symptom self-management and active participation in care. ePROMs could help HCP to focus on detection of relevant symptoms and improve their management. Almost 75% were willing to implement and use ePROMs. Assigning ePROM introduction and follow-up to a dedicated person, such as a nurse navigator, was suggested to promote ePROM implementation and use in clinical practice.

Conclusion

Despite limited experience with ePROMs in clinical care for palliative radiotherapy patients, the majority of respondents is willing to implement and use ePROMs for this particular patient population.

Innovation

This is one of the first studies specifically focusing on experiences and opinions of HCP in radiation oncology on the use of ePROMs for symptom follow-up in palliative radiotherapy. HCP should be actively involved in implementation of ePROMs after palliative radiotherapy, to translate their vision of their ideals in practice.

Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Clinical Care Using Electronic Administration and Telehealth Technologies: Realist Synthesis of Potential Mechanisms for Improving Health Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The routine measurement of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical care using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is gaining momentum worldwide. However, a deep understanding of the mechanisms underpinning ePROM interventions that could inform their optimal design to improve health outcomes is needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify the implicit mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of ePROM interventions and develop program theories about how and when ePROM interventions improve health outcomes.

METHODS

A realist synthesis of the literature about ePROM interventions in cancer clinical care was performed. A conceptual framework of ePROM interventions was constructed to define the scope of the review and frame the initial program theories. Literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL, supplemented by citation tracking, were performed to identify relevant literature to develop, refine, and test program theories. Quality appraisal of relevant studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Overall, 61 studies were included in the realist synthesis: 15 (25%) mixed methods studies, 9 (15%) qualitative studies, 13 (21%) descriptive studies, 21 (34%) randomized controlled trials, and 3 (5%) quasi-experimental studies. In total, 3 initial program theories were developed regarding the salient components of ePROM interventions-remote self-reporting, real-time feedback to clinicians, and clinician-patient telecommunication. The refined theories posit that remote self-reporting enables patients to recognize and report symptoms accurately and empowers them to communicate these to clinicians, real-time feedback prompts clinicians to manage symptoms proactively, and clinician-patient telephone interactions and e-interactions between clinic encounters improve symptom management by reshaping how clinicians and patients communicate. However, the intervention may not achieve the intended benefit if ePROMs become a reminder to patients of their illness and are not meaningful to them and when real-time feedback to clinicians lacks relevance and increases the workload.

CONCLUSIONS

The key to improving health outcomes through ePROM interventions is enabling better symptom reporting and communication through remote symptom self-reporting, promoting proactive management of symptoms through real-time clinician feedback, and facilitating clinician-patient interactions. Patient engagement with self-reporting and clinician engagement in responding to feedback are vital and may reinforce each other in improving outcomes. Effective ePROM interventions might fundamentally alter how clinicians and patients interact between clinic encounters.

Implementing cancer symptom management interventions utilizing patient-reported outcomes: a pre-implementation evaluation of barriers and facilitators

PURPOSE

Symptoms can negatively impact quality of life for patients with a history of cancer. Digital, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated approaches to routine symptom monitoring accompanied by evidence-based interventions for symptom management have been explored as a scalable way to improve symptom management, particularly between clinic visits. However, little research has evaluated barriers and facilitators to implementing these approaches in real-world settings, particularly during the pre-implementation phase. Pre-implementation assessment is critical for informing the selection and sequencing of implementation strategies and intervention adaptation. Thus, this study sought to understand pre-implementation perceptions of a remote cancer symptom monitoring and management intervention that uses electronic patient-reported outcome measures for symptom assessment.

METHODS

We interviewed 20 clinical and administrative stakeholders from 4 geographic regions within an academic medical center and its affiliated health system during the months prior to initiation of a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized pragmatic trial. Transcripts were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR] 2.0. Two study team members reviewed coded transcripts to understand how determinants were relevant in the pre-implementation phase of the trial and prepared analytic memos to identify themes.

RESULTS

Findings are summarized in four themes: (1) ability of the intervention to meet patient needs [recipient characteristics], (2) designing with care team needs in mind [innovation design and adaptability], (3) fit of the intervention with existing practice workflows [compatibility], and (4) engaging care teams early [engaging deliverers].

CONCLUSION

Attention to these aspects when planning intervention protocols can promote intervention compatibility with patients, providers, and practices thereby increasing implementation success.

Physical therapists' experience using focus on therapeutic outcome in outpatient clinics: A qualitative study

While patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are used in many practice settings as a standardized system of outcome measures, various factors may impact the meaningful use of PROMs by clinicians operating in various settings. Very limited research exists that focused on examining the use of FOTO® in outpatient rehabilitation settings. This study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators in achieving FOTO® treatment completion rates and patient functional outcomes among physical therapists. Additionally, the study aimed to explore the internal acceptance of FOTO as a useful tool in rehabilitation from the perspectives of physical therapists. Qualitative data were collected through four focus group interviews with physical therapists at outpatient rehabilitation clinics. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and transcribed, and qualitative content analysis was applied for data analysis. Four major themes emerged from qualitative data analyses including (a) use of FOTO® in clinical practice, (b) reasons why the FOTO® process may not be followed, (c), therapists' perceptions of FOTO®, and (d) perceived barriers and enablers related to FOTO®. The study concluded that multi-level determinants impact the successful use of FOTO® by therapists in outpatient rehabilitation settings. The findings have important implications for clinical practice, organizational leaders, and PROM developers.

Development and implementation barriers of a new patient-reported measure: The Radiation therapy-related Inconvenience Questionnaire (RIQ)

INTRODUCTION

Radiation therapy (RT) can benefit approximately 50% of cancer patients and contribute to 40% of all cancer cures, yet its utilisation in cancer is low globally. Several factors contribute to this including perceived inconvenience related to accessing and utilising RT. To quantitatively assess the latter, a new tool - the Radiation therapy-related Inconvenience Questionnaire (RIQ) - was developed. This study aimed to pre-test the RIQ and explore barriers and facilitators to implementing it in routine clinical practice and clinical trials.

METHODS

Semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with patients undertaking RT, recruited via three hospitals to examine content validity, acceptability, and comprehensibility of the RIQ. Interviews identified inconsistencies, relevance, and clarity of items. Semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of care to individuals undertaking RT explored barriers and facilitators to routine usage. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 15) identified problems in content, instructions, layout, length, and response options; consequently, 25 items were revised and eight removed, resulting in a final 29-item questionnaire. Clinicians identified staff- and patient-specific barriers to implementing RIQ in clinical practice. Perceived facilitators included the following: (a) workplace factors, (b) mode of administration, and (c) imparting knowledge.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated acceptability and comprehensibility of the 29-item RIQ amongst cancer patients undertaking RT and treating clinicians. The next phase will evaluate the RIQ's measurement properties in a larger clinical study. The barriers and facilitators identified can guide future implementation of RIQ in clinical practice and clinical trials.

Understanding the impact of radiotherapy related insufficiency fractures and exploring satisfaction with two existing patient reported outcome measures: A qualitative interview study

Introduction

Radiotherapy related insufficiency fractures (RRIFs) occur in approximately 10-15% of cancer survivors who underwent pelvic radiotherapy. Little research has been conducted to explore the impact of RRIFs on quality of life (QOL). Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used in oncology to measure side effects and QOL. The study aims to understand the influence of RRIF on QOL and to discover whether available PROMs address their needs.

Materials and methods

Twenty-five patients randomly selected from a Tertiary Oncology Centre bone health clinic database of patients referred with RRIFs were approached. Interested patients were sent two existing PROMs and a patient information sheet. Eleven patients agreed to take part in a semi-structured interview to explore their experiences and their opinion on the existing PROMs. Telephone interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Four themes were identified: 1) Route to diagnosis, 2) management of RRIFs and 3) resilience all had an impact on 4) QOL. Additionally, participants discussed PROMs and how they might be integrated into clinical practice. The data highlights the wide ranging QOL impacts experienced and highlights potential areas for improvement in terms of diagnosis and management pathways.

Discussion

The impact of RRIFs on QOL is considerable. Participants highlighted key areas for improvement including the provision of more information, more access to support and improved management pathways. Participants also highlighted the potential benefits of PROMs but suggested existing measures could be improved.

Barriers and facilitators of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) for patients in home palliative cancer care: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perceptions

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes in palliative care enable early monitoring and management of symptoms that most impact patients' daily lives; however, there are several barriers to adopting electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures (e-PROMs) in daily practice. This study explored the experiences of health care professionals (HCPs) regarding potential barriers and facilitators in implementing e-PROMs in palliative cancer care at home.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study. The data were collected from two focus groups structured according to the conceptual framework of Grol. HCPs involved in home palliative cancer care of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori of Milan were enrolled. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 245 codes were generated, 171 for the first focus group and 74 for the second focus group. The results were subdivided into subthemes according to Grol's themes: Innovation, Individual professional, Patient, Social context, Organizational context, except Economic Political context. Nine HCPs attended the first focus group, and ten attended the second. According to these participants, e-PROMs could be integrated into clinical practice after adequate training and support of HCPs at all stages of implementation. They identified barriers, especially in the social and organizational contexts, due to the uniqueness of the oncological end-of-life setting and the intangible care interventions, as well as many facilitators for the innovation that these tools bring and for improved communication with the patient and the healthcare team.

CONCLUSIONS

e-PROMs are perceived by HCPs as adding value to patient care and their work; however, barriers remain especially related to the fragility of these patients, the adequacy of technological systems, lack of education, and the risk of low humanization of care.

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a major global health problem. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) systems have been developed to support the treatment of patients with cancer. Although clear evidence of the benefits of the routine use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) exists, engaging physicians in using these systems has been challenging.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify and analyze what is currently known about health care professionals' (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators that exist and influence the use of ePRO systems for cancer care.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic mapping study by conducting searches of 3 databases (Association for Computing Machinery, PubMed, and Scopus). Eligible papers were published between 2010 and 2021, and they described HCPs' perspectives on using ePROs. The data on the included papers were extracted, a thematic meta-synthesis was performed, and 7 themes were summarized into 3 categories.

RESULTS

A total of 17 papers were included in the study. The HCPs' perceived barriers and facilitators of using ePROs can be summarized into 7 themes: clinical workflow, organization and infrastructure, value to patients, value to HCPs, digital health literacy, usability, and data visualization and perceived features. These themes can be further summarized into 3 categories: work environment, value to users, and suggested features. According to the study, ePROs should be interoperable with hospital electronic health records and adapted to the hospital workflow. HCPs should get appropriate support for their use. Additional features are needed for ePROs, and special attention should be paid to data visualization. Patients should have the option to use web-based ePROs at home and complete it at the time most valuable to the treatment. Patients' ePRO notes need attention during clinical visits, but ePRO use should not limit patient-clinician face-to-face communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that several aspects need improvement in ePROs and their operating environments. By improving these aspects, HCPs' experience with ePROs will enhance, and thus, there will be more facilitating factors for HCPs to use ePROs than those available today. More national and international knowledge about using ePROs is still needed to cover the need for information to develop them and their operating environments to meet the needs of HCPs.

Evaluation of a short instrument for measuring health-related quality of life in oncological patients in routine care (HELP-6): an observational study

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes have not been sufficiently implemented into the routine care of cancer patients because the existing instruments are often too long and complex or not cancer-specific. The aim of this study is the determination of psychometric properties and item reduction of a newly developed health-related quality of life (HrQoL) questionnaire for use in oncological clinical routines.

Methods

This observational study with a repeated measurements design included oncological inpatients and outpatients. A total of 630 patients participated at the first point of measurement and 404 at the second point of measurement. To evaluate the instrument, we conducted hierarchical confirmative factor analyses and for further validation correlated the resulting factors with standardized and validated HrQoL measurements. Test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change were tested.

Results

The developed questionnaire "HELP-6" ("Hamburg Inventory for Measuring Quality of Life in Oncological Patients") has a six-factor structure and has moderate-to-good convergent validity (r= -0.25 --0.68). Test-retest reliability was moderate-to-good (r =0.56-0.81, p < 0.001). Indications for responsiveness to change were found for three dimensions. The final version of the questionnaire HELP-6 has six dimensions with one item each.

Conclusion

With the HELP-6 instrument for measuring HrQoL in cancer patients, we provide a short and practical patient-reported outcome instrument. Though responsiveness to change could not be confirmed for all dimensions in this study, the HELP-6 includes time-efficient completion and evaluation and is informative in relevant HrQoL dimensions of cancer patients. Therefore, the HELP-6 poses an important addition to inpatient and outpatient routine cancer care.

Trial registration

This study was registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/y7xce/), on 9 June 2018.

Amplifying the Patient Voice: A Survey of Practitioners' Use of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Across Radiotherapy Providers in England

AIMS

The NHS England Radiotherapy Service Specification calls for routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, barriers exist at patient, healthcare professional and service levels. The aim of the present study was to determine the current use of PROMs within radiotherapy services in England. The current attitudes, barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs in radiotherapy practice were evaluated and practical recommendations to inform future implementation were developed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was adopted to obtain quantitative and qualitative data. An online questionnaire was developed and disseminated to all radiotherapy operational delivery network managers across England. The questionnaire consisted of 12 open and closed questions relating to PROMs use, with the option to provide free-text responses. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted on free-text comments, whereas descriptive statistics were used to analyse quantitative data.

RESULTS

In total, 182 responses were received from 40 of the 50 radiotherapy providers, resulting in a response rate of 84%. The current use of PROMs was analysed, including rationale for use, tools used, format of PROMs collection and timing within the radiotherapy pathway. Most respondents indicated that PROMs were used in the context of clinical trials only. Through thematic analysis, four identical key themes were identified relating to both barriers and enablers to PROMs use; these included IT infrastructure, time, human/financial resources and training/education. A fifth theme, standardisation, was identified as a key enabler to PROMs use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that outside of clinical trials, PROMs are not routinely used in radiotherapy services due to barriers identified at professional and service levels. Here we provide recommendations to mitigate the barriers identified and implement PROMs in radiotherapy, including training for healthcare professionals and standardisation of PROMs tools and storage. This study provides a key first step in driving PROMs implementation within radiotherapy services across England.

Dyspnea in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: a population-based analysis of disease burden and patterns of care

Background

Patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience significant morbidity with dyspnea being a common symptom with a prevalence of 70%. The objective of this study was to determine factors associated with a moderate-to-severe dyspnea score based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), as well as resultant patterns of intervention and factors correlated to intervention receipt.

Methods

Using health services administrative data, we conducted a population-based study of all patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC treated from January 2007 to September 2018 in the province of Ontario. The primary outcomes of interest are the prevalence of moderate-to-severe dyspnea scores, and the receipt of dyspnea-directed intervention. Differences in baseline characteristic between moderate-to-severe dyspnea and low dyspnea score cohorts were assessed by comparative statistics. Predictors of intervention receipt for patients with moderate-to-severe dyspnea scores were estimated using multivariable modified Poisson regression.

Results

The initial study cohort included 13,159 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC and of these, 9,434 (71.7%) reported a moderate-to-severe dyspnea score. Compared to patients who did not report moderate-to-severe dyspnea scores, those who reported a moderate-to-severe dyspnea score were more likely to complete a greater number of ESAS surveys, be male, have a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI) score, and receive subsequent systemic therapy after diagnosis. Most patients with a moderate-to-severe dyspnea score received intervention (96%), of which the most common were palliative care management (87%), thoracic radiotherapy (56%) and thoracentesis (37%). Multivariable regression identified older patients to be less likely to undergo pleurodesis. Thoracentesis was less common for patients living in rural and non-major urban areas, lower income areas, and earlier year of diagnosis. Receipt of thoracic radiotherapy was less common for older patients, females, those with ECI ≥4, patients living in major urban areas, and those with later year of diagnosis. Finally, palliative care referrals were less frequent for patients with ECI ≥4, age 60-69, residence outside of major urban areas, earlier year of diagnosis, and lower income areas.

Conclusions

Dyspnea is a prevalent symptom amongst patients with metastatic NSCLC. Subpopulations of patients with moderate-to-severe dyspnea scores were in which inequities may exist in access to care that require further attention and evaluation.

Ten Considerations for Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes into Clinical Care for Childhood Cancer Survivors

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are subjective assessments of health status or health-related quality of life. In childhood cancer survivors, PROMs can be used to evaluate the adverse effects of cancer treatment and guide cancer survivorship care. However, there are barriers to integrating PROMs into clinical practice, such as constraints in clinical validity, meaningful interpretation, and technology-enabled administration of the measures. This article discusses these barriers and proposes 10 important considerations for appropriate PROM integration into clinical care for choosing the right measure (considering the purpose of using a PROM, health profile vs. health preference approaches, measurement properties), ensuring survivors complete the PROMs (data collection method, data collection frequency, survivor capacity, self- vs. proxy reports), interpreting the results (scoring methods, clinical meaning and interpretability), and selecting a strategy for clinical response (integration into the clinical workflow). An example framework for integrating novel patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection into the clinical workflow for childhood cancer survivorship care is also discussed. As we continuously improve the clinical validity of PROMs and address implementation barriers, routine PRO assessment and monitoring in pediatric cancer survivorship offer opportunities to facilitate clinical decision making and improve the quality of survivorship care.

Stepping into the real world: a mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in routine lung cancer care

Background

To realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

Method

A controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed.

Results

A total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect). The levels of ‘organizational readiness for implementing change’ (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options.

Plain English summary

Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.

Adapting an integrated care pathway for implementing electronic patient reported outcomes assessment in routine oncology care: Lessons learned from a case study

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

Details of the development and implementation of integrated care pathways (ICPs) in the context of electronic collection of patient reported outcomes (ePROs) for cancer patients are largely lacking in the literature. This study describes what, why and how decisions were made to adapt and implement an ePROs ICP for patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

A consensus process was utilized, with the implementation advisory group including multidisciplinary representation from three participating hospitals, to identify local champions and adapt and incorporate the ePRO ICP into the local contexts. Engagement meetings were documented via meeting transcripts, and detailed notes from October 2019 to November 2020 were content-analysed to identify decision-making themes based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; workflows and process maps were reviewed and modified to integrate ePROs.

RESULTS

In total, 55 engagement activities were held (24 meetings, 20 workshops 11 educational sessions), with n = 96 staff from multiple disciplines participating in the ePROs implementation through advisory meetings, process mapping, change management and staff education. Decisions were made regarding eligible patient cohorts to include, the process for onboarding patients onto the ePRO system, and follow-up and referral pathways. Rationales for decisions included alignment with existing workflows, utilizing available staff, minimizing staff and patient burden and maximizing patient engagement.

CONCLUSION

Existing resources, staff input and technical and logistical reasons often guided the ICP decisions, highlighting the need for in-depth engagement across all stakeholders for optimal implementation of ePRO ICPs. The ePRO implementation required substantial dialogue and systematic resolution to reach agreement on the final processes. Adapting the local ICP through rigorous engagement facilitated the successful implementation of ePROs as business-as-usual at all three cancer centres. Involving all relevant stakeholders is critical to the successful adaptation of ICPs before their introduction into routine care.

An implementation study of electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes in inpatient radiation oncology

Purpose

Despite evidence for clinical benefits, recommendations in guidelines, and options for electronic data collection, routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is mostly not implemented in clinical practice. This study aimed to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic PRO (e-PRO) assessment in the clinical routine of an inpatient radiation oncology clinic.

Methods

The guideline- and evidence-based, stepwise approach of this single-center implementation study comprised preparatory analyses of current practice, selection of assessment instruments and times, development of staff training, and evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of the e-PRO assessment, as well as on-site support of the implementation. Process evaluation focused on potential clinical benefit (number of documented symptoms and supportive measures), feasibility and acceptance (patient contacts resulting in completion/non-completion of the e-PRO assessment, reasons for non-completion, preconditions, facilitators and barriers of implementation), and required resources (duration of patient contacts to explain/support the completion).

Results

Selection of instruments and assessment times resulted in initial assessment at admission (EORTC QLQ-C30, QSR 10), daily symptom monitoring (EORTC single items), and assessment at discharge (EORTC QLQ-C30). Recommendations for PRO-based clinical action and self-management advice for patients concerning nine core symptoms were developed. Staff training comprised group and face-to-face meetings and an additional e-learning course was developed. Analyses of clinical records showed that e-PRO assessment identified more symptoms followed by a higher number of supportive measures compared to records of patients without e-PRO assessment. Analysis of n = 1597 patient contacts resulted in n = 1355 (84.9%) completed e-PROs (initial assessment: n = 355, monitoring: n = 967, final assessment: n = 44) and n = 242 (15.2%) non-completions. Instructions or support to complete e-PROs took on average 5.5 ± 5.3 min per patient contact. The most challenging issue was the integration of the results in clinical practice.

Conclusion

E-PRO assessment in oncologic inpatient settings is acceptable for patients and can support symptom identification and the initiation of supportive measures. The challenge of making the “data actionable” within the clinical workflow and motivating clinical staff to use the results became evident.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00478-3.

Cancer patients’ perceptions regarding their symptoms and functioning are important as they can differ from a professional assessment. Patients’ perceptions and self-assessment can be collected via electronic devices. Thus, the clinical staff can see a graphic overview of individual disease-related burden. Despite studies indicating the benefit of this assessment for care and symptom management, it is not integrated into routine care so far. The aim of our study was, to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic patient-reported assessment in a radio-oncology inpatient clinic under “real-life” clinical conditions instead of study conditions. Patients could complete an electronic assessment at the beginning/end and during their treatment. Results indicate that electronic self-assessment can identify more symptoms than the assessment of physicians and nurses. Patients completing a self-assessment are more likely to receive supportive measures. The majority of 80–90% of patients were willing to complete a self-assessment. On average 5–6 min were needed to explain or support the completion. While the intervention was feasible and acceptable for patients, motivating clinical staff using its results was most challenging. The importance of technical support became evident.

The Effects of Patient-Reported Outcome Screening on the Survival of People with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study examined the effects of the routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on the overall survival of adult patients with cancer. We included clinical trials and observational studies with a control group that compared PRO monitoring interventions in cancer clinical practice to usual care. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools were used. In total, six studies were included in the systematic review: two randomized trials, one population-based retrospectively matched cohort study, two pre−post with historical control studies and one non-randomized controlled trial. Half were multicenter, two were conducted in Europe, three were conducted in the USA and was conducted in Canada. Two studies considered any type of cancer, two were restricted to lung cancer and two were restricted to advanced forms of cancer. PRO screening was electronic in four of the six studies. The meta-analysis included all six studies (intervention = 130.094; control = 129.903). The pooled mortality outcome at 1 year was RR = 0.77 (95%CI 0.76−0.78) as determined by the common effect model and RR = 0.82 (95%CI 0.60−1.12; p = 0.16) as determined by the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was statistically significant (I2 = 73%; p < 0.01). The overall risk of bias was rated as moderate in five studies and serious in one study. This meta-analysis seemed to indicate the survival benefits of PRO screening. As routine PRO monitoring is often challenging, more robust evidence regarding the effects of PROs on mortality would support systematic applications.

A Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Childhood Cancer

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical work and research to capture the subjective experiences of childhood cancer patients and survivors. PROs encompass content domains relevant and important to this population, including health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL), symptoms, and functional status. To inform future efforts in the application of PRO measures, this review describes the existing generic and cancer-specific PRO measures for pediatric cancer populations and summarizes their characteristics, available language translations, content coverage, and measurement properties into tables for clinicians and researchers to reference before choosing a PRO measure that suits their purpose. We have identified often unreported measurement properties that could provide evidence about the clinical utility of the PRO measures. Routine PRO assessment in pediatric cancer care offers opportunities to facilitate clinical decision-making and improve quality of care for these patients. However, we suggest that before implementing PRO measures into research or clinical care, the psychometric properties and content coverage of the PRO measures must be considered to ensure that PRO measures are appropriately assessing the intended construct in childhood cancer patients.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PROMs) in palliative cancer care: a scoping review

Background

In palliative oncology settings, electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment can play an important role in supporting clinical activities for clinicians and patients. This scoping review aims to map the technological innovation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) in cancer palliative care and how PRO data collected through e-PROMs can influence the monitoring and management of symptoms and enable better communication between health professionals and patients.

Methods

A scoping review study was designed according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and CINAHL and gray literature sources were consulted. The inclusion criteria were people over 18 years old receiving palliative and/or end-of-life care using e-PROMs.

Results

Thirteen primary studies were included: nine quantitative studies, two qualitative studies, and two mixed-method studies. The recently developed software that supports e-PROMs allows patients to receive feedback on their symptoms, helps clinicians prioritize care needs and monitors patients’ conditions as their symptoms change. Electronic PRO data prompt difficult, end-of-life communication between clinicians and patients to better organize care in the last phase of life.

Conclusion

This work shows that electronic PRO data assessment provides valuable tools for patients’ well-being and the management of symptoms; only one study reported conflicting results. However, with studies lacking on how clinicians can use these tools to improve communication with patients, more research is needed.

Misconceiving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) as primarily a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool: perceptions of independent healthcare sector stakeholders in the UK

Background

The independent healthcare sector in the UK collects PROMs for several surgical procedures, but implementation has been challenging. We aimed to understand the enablers and barriers to PROMs implementation in the independent healthcare sector in the UK.

Method

Between January and May 2021, we remotely conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital consultants, hospital managers and other clinical staff using a topic guide developed from an implementation science framework called the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Results

We interviewed 6 hospital consultants, 5 hospital managers, and 3 other clinical staff (1 nurse and 2 physiotherapists) across 8 hospitals. Common barriers included: the perception that PROMs are predominantly a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool, absence of feedback mechanisms for PROMs data for clinicians, poor awareness of PROMs among healthcare professionals and the public, absence of direction or commitment from leadership, and limited support from hospital consultants. Common enablers included: regular feedback of PROMs data to clinicians, designating roles and responsibilities, formally embedding PROMs collection into patient pathways, and involvement of hospital consultants in developing strategies to improve PROMs uptake.

Conclusion

To support PROMs implementation, independent hospitals need to develop long-term organisational strategies that involve sustained leadership commitment, goals or targets, training opportunities to staff, and regular feedback of PROMs data at clinical or governance meetings. The primary purpose of PROMs needs to be reframed to independent healthcare sector stakeholders as a quality improvement tool rather than a reporting requirement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00511-5.

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in HIV Infection: Points to Consider and Challenges

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to reach consensus on the use of PROs (patient-reported outcome measures) in people living with HIV (PLHIV).

METHODS

A scientific committee of professionals with experience in PROMs methodology issued recommendations and defined the points to support by evidence. A systematic review of the literature identified the coverage, utility, and psychometric properties of PROMs used in PLHIV. A Delphi survey was launched to measure the degree of agreement with the recommendations of a group of practicing clinicians and a group of patient representatives.

RESULTS

Four principles and ten recommendations were issued; however, the results of the Delphi showed significant differences in the opinion between health professionals and PLHIV, and polarization within collectives, hampering consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a wealth of evidence on the benefit of PROMs, there are clear barriers to their use by healthcare professionals in HIV care. Intervention on these barriers is paramount to allow truly patient-centered care.

Collection and Utilization of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Colorectal Surgery Clinic

INTRODUCTION

The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) promises to improve patient care. However, in colorectal surgery, PROMs are uncommonly collected outside of clinical research studies and rarely used in clinical care. We designed and implemented a quality improvement project with the goals of routinely collecting PROMs and increasing the frequency that PROMs are utilized by colorectal surgeons in clinical practice.

METHODS

This mixed-methods, quality improvement project was conducted in the colorectal surgery clinic of a tertiary academic medical center. Patients were administered up to five PROMs before each appointment. PROM completion rates were measured. Additionally, we performed two educational interventions to increase utilization of our electronic health record's PROM dashboard by colorectal surgeons. Utilization rates and attitudes toward the PROM dashboard were measured.

RESULTS

Overall, patients completed 3600 of 3977 (90.9%) administered PROMs during the study period. At baseline, colorectal surgeons reviewed 6.7% of completed PROMs. After two educational interventions, this increased to 39.3% (P = 0.004). Colorectal surgeons also felt that the PROM dashboard was easier to use. Barriers to greater PROM dashboard utilization included poor user interface/user experience and a perceived lack of knowledge, time, and relevance.

CONCLUSIONS

The collection of PROMs in colorectal surgery clinics is feasible and can result in high PROM completion rates. Educational interventions can improve the utilization of PROMs by colorectal surgeons in clinical practice. Our experience collecting PROMs through this quality improvement initiative can serve as a template for other colorectal surgery clinics interested in collecting and utilizing data from PROMs.

Patient, provider, and nurse preferences of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and side effect management during cancer treatment of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups, rural and economically disadvantaged patients: a mixed methods study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient, oncologist and nurse perspectives on side effects and patient reported outcomes (PROs) with the question of how to optimize side effect management and PRO tools in this unique population.

METHODS

This pilot study utilized a mixed method explanatory design. Patients receiving intravenous (IV) chemotherapy from June to August 2020 were surveyed about side effect burden and PRO system preferences. Providers and nurses (PN) completed complementary surveys. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted among a subset of each group.

RESULTS

Of 90 patient surveys collected; 51.1% minority, 35.6% rural, and 40.0% income < $30,000, 48% felt side effect management was a significant issue. All patients reported access to a communication device but 12.2% did not own a cell phone; 68% smart phone, 20% cell phone, 22% landline, 53% computer, and 39% tablet. Patients preferred a response to reported side effects within 0-3 h (73%) while only 29% of the 55 PN surveyed did (p < 0.0001). Interviews reinforced that side effect burden was a significant issue, the varied communication devices, and a PRO system could improve side effect management.

CONCLUSION

In a non-White, rural and low-income patient population, 87.8% of patients reported owning a cell phone. Although all agreed side effect management was a prominent issue, expectations between patients and PN differed substantially. Qualitative data echoed the above and providing concrete suggestions to inform development of a PRO program and side effect mitigation strategies among a diverse patient population.

Real-World Adherence to Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring as a Cancer Care Quality Metric

PURPOSE:

Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients with advanced solid malignancies is an evidence-based practice and critical component of high-quality cancer care, but real-world adherence is poorly characterized. We sought to describe real-world adherence to PRO monitoring and its potential predictors.

METHODS:

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using deidentified electronic health record data from a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center, encompassing one academic and two community sites. Participants included individuals with lung cancer receiving systemic therapy from January 1 to December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was patient-level adherence, defined as the proportion of treatment visits during which a PRO questionnaire (spanning symptoms, functional status, and global quality-of-life domains) was completed within 30 days. Practice-level performance was calculated as unadjusted mean patient-level adherence. We modeled patient-level adherence using multivariable ordinary least squares regression and identified covariates associated with adherence using a significance threshold of P < .05.

RESULTS:

In 2019, there were 18,604 encounters for 1,105 patients with lung cancer (mean [standard deviation] age 65.8 [10.2] years; 621 [56.2%] female; 216 [19.6%] Black) receiving systemic therapy. The mean patient-level PRO adherence ranged from 27.2% to 70.0% across sites and was 49.4% overall. Advanced age (≥ 65 years) and Black or African American race were negatively associated with PRO adherence ( P < .01).

CONCLUSION:

Across this real-world cohort of patients undergoing treatment for lung cancer, adherence to PRO monitoring lagged that achieved in seminal clinical trials, with potential age- and race-based disparities, demonstrating an implementation gap that could be addressed with standardized reporting of an adherence-based quality metric.

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Oncology Trials: Surveys of Key Stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum

Background

Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug’s tolerability in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT). We conducted surveys of international stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum to understand attitudes about patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in DFOT.

Methods

A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders, and regulators of DFOT was distributed via professional bodies examining experience using PROs, benefits/barriers, and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes.

Results

International survey: 112 responses from 15 September–30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%)]. Most trialists had no experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%), or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed that PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on the frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (71/103, 68.9%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. A total of 28 (49.1%) were willing to spend <15 min/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.5%) preferred to complete PROs online. 61 (54.5%) trialists and 57 (100%) consumers agreed that patient-reported adverse events should be used to inform dose-escalation decisions.

Conclusion

Stakeholders reported minimal experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use. Guidelines are needed to standardize PRO selection, analysis, and reporting in DFOT.

Neurologists' views on patient reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis care

Background

The value that patient reported outcomes (PROs) can bring to the clinical encounter is increasingly being recognized. Within the field of Multiple Sclerosis (MS), a number of activities have been initiated internationally with the aim of integrating PROs in MS care. Integration of PROs in MS care will, among other things, require MS neurologists' acceptance of PROs. This qualitative study aimed to explore MS specialized neurologists’ view on the potentials and barriers for the use of PROs in the clinical setting.

Methods

Eight neurologists specialized in MS participated in a series of individual in-depth semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis was conducted using a reflexive thematic approach to identify meaning units and themes emerging from the interviews. The analysis focused on barriers and potentials for PROs that relate to the specific characteristics of MS.

Results

Three main themes emerged from the data. “The role of PROs in describing the patient's situation” describes how informants perceived MS as a complex disease, and in this context, PROs can bring forth new or otherwise hidden information, but they may also blur the picture. The theme “The validity of PROs reported by MS patients may be questionable” describes how impairments caused by MS, such as cognitive and physical disabilities, were identified as risk factors that could cause unreliable self-reported outcome measures within this patient group. Finally, the theme “Involving the patient” regards how the clinical conversation was viewed as the most important source of patient reported information, but at the same time PROs carry the potential to enhance shared decision making.

Conclusion

This study indicates that, according to MS neurologists, integration of PROs in MS clinical practice, though possibly valuable, is not without challenges. Possible benefits of PROs include the ability to bring forth otherwise hidden information on the patient's health status and the enhancement of shared decision making. Barriers include difficulties in capturing the full situation of the patient via PROs due to the complexity of MS as well as the issue of various MS-related impairments compromising the validity of PROs reported by MS patients.

•

The complexity of MS affects neurologists' attitudes towards PROs.

•

PROs hold the potential to bring forth otherwise hidden information.

•

Neurologists are sceptical regarding the quality of information from PROs.

•

PROs may not provide sufficiently detailed information about patients' situations.

Patients’ experiences and perspectives of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical care: A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used by clinicians in everyday clinical practice to assess patients’ perceptions of their own health and the healthcare they receive. By providing insight into how illness and interventions impact on patients’ lives, they can help to bridge the gap between clinicians’ expectations and what matters most to the patient. Given increasing focus on patient-centred care, the objective of this meta-synthesis was to summarise the qualitative evidence regarding patients’ perspectives and experiences of the use of PROMs in clinical care.

Methods

A systematic search of the following databases was undertaken in August 2020: Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE, PsychINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. This review was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative research (CASP). A meta-ethnographic approach was used for data extraction and meta-synthesis of findings (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020202506).

Results

Fourteen studies from a range of countries with differing qualitative research methodologies were identified. Three themes were identified, namely ‘patient preferences regarding PROMs’, ‘patient perceived benefits’ and ‘barriers to patient engagement with PROMs’. The perspectives of patients suggested they preferred PROMs that were simple and relevant to their conditions and found benefits in the way they facilitated self-reflection and effective communication with their clinicians. Patients, however, questioned the relevance of some individual questions and purpose.

Conclusion

PROMs can be a useful tool in the clinical setting by enabling individualisation and patient centred care. This meta-synthesis provides insights into what patients find beneficial as well as barriers to their engagement, highlighting the importance of educating patients about PROMs.

Barriers and Facilitators When Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures at a Municipal Cancer Care Unit: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Few qualitative studies of barriers and facilitators when implementing electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) in municipal cancer care exist within the large body of symptom assessment research. Such data, gathered from healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspective, are central to the development and design of sustainable interventions aiming for a systematic and patient-centered symptom assessment to patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify and explore barriers and facilitators, as described by HCPs, in the implementation of the ePROM application "Eir" at a municipal cancer care unit in Norway.

METHODS

The study applies a qualitative method, conducting an inductive data inquiry of semistructured individual interviews and focus groups with 14 Norwegian HCPs. Analysis was inspired by thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed 3 main themes affecting the implementation of ePROM in municipal cancer care: "achieving patient-centered care," "crucial management and training," and "technological barriers."

CONCLUSION

The results from this study suggest that HCPs' motivation plays a significant role when implementing ePROM. Motivation of HCPs was strongly influenced by whether the application added value to previously used symptom assessment. Hands-on management and a multiprofessional approach enabled the implementation by facilitating adaptations, training, and resources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The findings show that adapting the implementation of ePROMs to patient population could be of major importance. Early integration of ePROMs in cancer care could facilitate use throughout the disease trajectory.

Knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a comprehensive cancer center

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of the positive impact of routine assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their systematic collection is not widely implemented in cancer care.

AIM

To assess the knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards PROMs and electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs) in clinical practice and research and to explore respondent-related factors associated with the above dimensions.

METHOD

An ad hoc developed online survey was administered to all HCPs employed in clinical activity in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. The survey investigated which PROMs were known and used, as well as HCPs' opinions on the advantages and drawbacks of routine PROM assessment, including electronic assessment (ePROM). Linear and logistic regression models were used for association analyses.

RESULTS

Five Hundred Eleven of nine hundred ninety-two invited HCPs (52%) provided analyzable responses. 68% were women, 46% were nurses and 42% physicians, and 52.5% had > 20 years seniority. The average number of PROMs known was six among 17 proposed. All proved to be under-used (< 28%) except unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales (77 and 36%). Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards PROMs, with strengths outweighing weaknesses (mean overall scores 3.6 and 2.9, respectively, on a 1-5 scale). 67% of respondents preferred electronic collection over paper and pencil. Profession was associated with knowledge and use (physicians reported knowing more PROMs than other professionals) and with a preference for electronic collection (nurses were less likely to prefer the electronic format than physicians). Senior HCPs were slightly more critical about both PROMs and electronic administration.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey indicates an acceptable level of knowledge of common PROM tools but low usage in practice. Based on the generally positive attitude of HCPs, routine implementation of ePROMs can be promoted as long as adequate resources and training are provided.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not registered.

Priority recommendations for the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical cancer care: a Delphi study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop priority recommendations for the service level implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical cancer care.

Methods

Development of draft guidance statements was informed by a literature review, the Knowledge to Action (KTA) implementation framework, and discussion with PRO experts and cancer survivors. A two-round modified Delphi survey with key stakeholders including cancer survivors, clinical and research experts, and Information Technology specialists was undertaken. Round 1 rated the importance of the statements and round 2 ranked statements in order of priority.

Results

Round 1 was completed by 70 participants with round 2 completed by 45 participants. Forty-seven statements were rated in round 2. In round 1, the highest agreement items (>90% agreement) included those that focused on the formation of strong stakeholder partnerships, ensuring ongoing communication within these partnerships, and the use of PROs for improvement and guidance in clinical care. Items ranked as the highest priorities in round 2 included assessment of current staff capabilities and service requirements, mapping of workflows and processes to enable collection, and using collected PROs to guide improved health outcomes.

Conclusions

This stakeholder consultation process has identified key priorities in PRO implementation into clinical cancer care that include clinical relevance, stakeholder engagement, communication, and integration within the existing processes and capabilities.

Implication for Cancer Survivors

Routine adoption of PRO collection by clinical cancer services requires multiple implementation steps; of highest priority is strong engagement and communication with key stakeholders including cancer survivors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01135-2.

Validating an Instrument for Direct Patient Reporting of Distress and Chemotherapy-Related Toxicity among South African Cancer Patients

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) for monitoring treatment toxicity improve quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcomes. However, no such PROMs exist for sub-Saharan African cancer patients. We aimed to validate the Patient Reported Symptoms-South Africa (PRS-SA) survey, a novel PROM for measuring distress and chemotherapy-related symptoms in South African cancer patients. We enrolled patients at the oncology clinic at Charlotte Maxeke Hospital, Johannesburg. At three separate visits, participants simultaneously completed the PRS-SA survey and several previously validated questionnaires. We constructed a receiver operator characteristics curve for distress levels predicting a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score ≥15. We evaluated construct validity for symptom items by comparing severity to the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) summary score (Pearson correlation tests) and ECOG performance status (Mann-Whitney U tests). We assessed symptom item responsiveness by comparing change in severity to change in QLQ-C30 summary score and comparing standardized mean scores with negative, no, or positive change on the Global Impression of Change (GIC) questionnaire (Jockheere-Terpstra trend test). Overall, 196 participants with solid tumors completed instruments. A distress score of 4 had 82% sensitivity and 55% specificity for clinical depression/anxiety. All symptom items showed construct validity by association with either QLQ-C30 score or performance status (highest p = 0.03). All but cough showed responsiveness to change in QLQ-C30 score (highest p = 0.045). In South African cancer patients, the PRS-SA's stress scale behaves similarly to the distress thermometer in other populations, and the symptom items demonstrated construct validity and responsiveness. Of note, 46% and 74% of participants who completed the PRS-SA in English or isiZulu, respectively, required assistance reading half or more of the instrument.

Time to Complete Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients with Lumbar Decompression

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to capture the true extent of postoperative improvement. Use of lengthier and repetitive PROMs can increase question burden on patients. This study aims to determine whether the length of time to complete (TTC) legacy PROMs has an impact on scores after lumbar decompression.

METHODS

A surgical database was retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent primary, single-level lumbar decompression from 2013 to 2020. Demographic and perioperative characteristics were collected. Physical function (PF) was measured by 12-Item Short Form (SF-12), 12-Item Veterans RAND (VR-12), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and was collected preoperatively and postoperatively. TTC was calculated as the difference between start and ending times for each instance of survey completion. Improvements for PROMs and comparison of TTC between SF-12/VR-12 and PROMIS PF were evaluated using a t-test. Correlation between TTC and PROM scores was evaluated using the Pearson correlation. Impact of TTC on postoperative PROM scores was evaluated using linear regression.

RESULTS

A total of 216 patients, of which 68.1% were men, were included with a mean age of 45.8 years. Mean postoperative TTC for SF-12 and VR-12 was significantly longer than preoperative values (all P < 0.05). No notable difference in TTC was demonstrated for PROMIS PF. TTC PROMIS PF was significantly shorter than SF-12 and VR-12 from 12 weeks through 1 year (all P < 0.050). A low-strength negative correlation of TTC with SF-12 and VR-12 was observed at the preoperative, 6-week and 1-year timepoint whereas PROMIS PF had a low-strength positive correlation with TTC preoperatively and at 6 months (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Time spent completing PROMIS PF did not markedly differ postoperatively, but SF-12 and VR-12 required a longer TTC than PROMIS PF. Although insightful to patient improvement, SF-12 and VR-12 may increase the question burden placed on patients to complete surveys in a timely manner.

Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals' preferences for learning content and methods

Purpose

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning course for health care professionals (HCPs) on the utilisation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PROMs in oncological clinical practice is being developed. This study aimed to explore future users’ educational needs regarding content and learning methods.

Methods

The sequential mixed methods approach was applied. A scoping literature review informed the guideline for qualitative interviews with HCPs with diverse professional backgrounds in oncology and cancer advocates recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. An international online survey was conducted to validate the qualitative findings.

Results

Between December 2019 and May 2020, 73 interviews were conducted in 9 countries resulting in 8 topic areas (Basic information on PROs in clinical routine, Benefits of PRO assessments in clinical practice, Implementation of PRO assessments in clinical routine, Setup of PRO assessments for clinical application, Interpretation of PRO data, Integration of PROs into the communication with patients, Use of PROs in clinical practice, Self-management recommendations for patients based on PROs) subsequently presented in the online survey. The online survey (open between 3 June and 19 July 2020) was completed by 233 HCPs from 33 countries. The highest preference was indicated for content on interpretation of PRO data (97%), clinical benefits of assessing PRO data (95.3%) and implementation of routine PRO data assessment (94.8%). Regarding learning methods, participants indicated a high preference for practical examples that use a mixed approach of presentation (written, audio, video and interactive).

Conclusion

Educational needs for an integration of PROs in communication in clinical care and coherent implementation strategies became evident. These results inform the development of an e-learning course to support HCPs in the clinical use of EORTC PRO measures.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06676-x.

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

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7.

Oncology team perspectives on distress screening: a multisite study of a well-established use of patient-reported outcomes for clinical assessment

PURPOSE

Cancer care team attitudes towards distress screening are key to its success and sustainability. Previous qualitative research has interviewed staff mostly around the startup phase. We evaluate oncology teams' perspectives on psychosocial distress screening, including perceived strengths and challenges, in settings where it has been operational for years.

METHODS

We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 71 cancer care team members (e.g., MDs, RNs, MSWs) at 18 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs including those serving underrepresented populations.

RESULTS

Strengths of distress screening identified by participants included identifying patient needs and testing provider assumptions. Staff indicated it improved patient-provider communication and other aspects of care. Challenges to distress screening included patient barriers (e.g., respondent burden) and lack of electronic system interoperability. Participants expressed the strengths of distress screening (n = 291) more than challenges (n = 86). Suggested improvements included use of technology to collect data, report results, and make referrals; complete screenings prior to appointments; longitudinal assessment; additional staff training; and improve resources to address patient needs.

CONCLUSION

Cancer care team members' perspectives on well-established distress screening programs largely replicate findings of previous studies focusing on the startup phase, but there are important differences: team members expressed more strengths than challenges, suggesting a positive attitude. While our sample described many challenges described previously, they did not indicate challenges with scoring and interpreting the distress screening questionnaire. The differences in attitudes expressed in response to mature versus startup implementations provide important insights to inform efforts to sustain and optimize distress screening.

Patient-reported outcome measures in oncology: a qualitative study of the healthcare professional's perspective

BACKGROUND

In the last decades, the number of cancer survivors has increased significantly due to improved treatment and better detection of recurrence. This increased survival redirects the scope from survival towards optimising functional outcomes and improving health-related quality of life (HRQol). Functional and HRQoL outcomes can be assessed with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the use of PROMs in daily oncological care is not common. This qualitative study investigates the barriers and facilitators of PROM use in an oncological setting, from the perspective of the healthcare professionals (HCPs).

METHODS

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted among Dutch oncological HCPs. Barriers and facilitators of PROM implementation were identified on various levels of the healthcare system (i.e. level of the patient, individual professional, medical team, and healthcare organisation). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were manually analysed by two independent reviewers using a thematic approach. Identified barriers and facilitators were categorised into Grol and Wensing's framework for changing healthcare practice.

RESULTS

Nineteen oncological HCPs working in academic and non-academic hospitals were interviewed. Barriers for PROM implementation were lack of good IT support, lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs, lack of time to complete and interpret PROMs, and a high administrative burden. PROM implementation can be facilitated by providing clear guidance regarding PROM interpretation, evidence that PROMs can save time, and stimulating multidisciplinary teamwork.

CONCLUSION

From a HCP point of view, adequately functioning IT technology, sufficient knowledge on PROMs, and dedicated time during the consultation are essential for successful implementation of PROMs in oncological care. Additional local context-specific factors need to be thoroughly addressed.

Exploring the use of health and wellbeing measures during pregnancy and the first year following birth in women living with pre-existing long-term conditions: qualitative interviews with women and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

One way in which care for pregnant and postpartum women living with long-term health conditions (LTCs) may be improved is through the adoption of standardised measures to provide evidence of health outcomes and wellbeing from the woman's perspective.

AIM

The study explores the views of pregnant and postpartum women living with LTCs, and healthcare professionals to better understand the potential value of using standardised health and wellbeing measures within this patient population.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted to explore the perceived value of using measures with pregnant and postpartum women living with LTCs within maternity services. Participants were asked to provide feedback on three exemplar measures: the Long Term Conditions Questionnaire, the Wellbeing in Pregnancy Questionnaire and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L instrument. Thematic analysis was used in the analysis of the transcripts.

RESULTS

Eleven women and 11 healthcare professionals took part in semi-structured interviews. Analysis identified five themes as relevant to the use of measures within maternity services: 1) Improving care, 2) Assessing outcomes, 3) Interpretation and application of data, 4) Engagement challenges and implementation and, 5) Women and healthcare professionals alignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite varying prior experience and expressing some questions about implementation, respondents were cautiously positive about the use of standardised health and wellbeing measures. Their use offers the opportunity for both affected women and healthcare professionals caring for them to collectively identify and assess important areas of unmet needs and improve outcomes. Incorporating the perspectives of women with LTC's will help bring awareness to elements of women centred care which health services may seek to address.

A narrative review of current evidence supporting the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in the management of chronic diseases

An application of telemedicine of growing interest and relevance is the use of personal computers and mobile devices to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are self-reports of patients' health status without interpretation by anyone else. The tools developed to assess PROs are known as patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs). The technological innovations that have led to an increased ownership of electronic devices have also facilitated the development of electronic PROMs (ePROMs). ePROMs are a conduit for telemedicine in the care of patients with chronic diseases. Various studies have demonstrated that the use of ePROMs in routine clinical practice is both acceptable and feasible with patients increasingly expressing a preference for an electronic mode of administration. There is increasing evidence that the use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePROMs) could have significant impacts on outcomes valued by patients, healthcare providers and researchers. Whilst the development and implementation of these systems may be initially costly and resource-intensive, patient preferences and existing evidence to support their implementation suggests the need for continued research prioritisation in this area. This narrative review summarises and discusses evidence of the impact of ePROMs on clinical parameters and outcomes relevant to chronic diseases. We also explore recently published literature regarding issues that may influence the robust implementation of ePROMs for routine clinical practice.

Could existing infrastructure for using patient-reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer?

Background

There has been increasing interest in integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine oncological practice. To date, however, PROs have rarely been implemented in Germany. Currently, PROs are being used as performance measures in colorectal cancer centers in Germany. This content analysis identified factors that may inhibit or facilitate the additional use of PROMs for individual patient management.

Methods

The analysis follows an exploratory approach. Out of 103 centers that participated in a multicentric PRO quality management and benchmarking program in Germany, twelve oncological health-care providers from eight certified colorectal cancer centers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviewees were clinicians (physicians, nurses, psycho-oncologist and physician assistant) who care for colorectal cancer patients. This analysis evaluated whether and how PROs that are primarily collected for quality management/benchmarking reasons could also be used for the management of individual patients. The data was analyzed using a content-analysis approach.

Results

The interviewees were not using PRO in their routine clinical work, but they recognized its added value and pointed out potential example uses. Identified inhibiting factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work were effortful access to PRO reports, lacking coordinating structures, time delays and time points of measurements as well as redundancy with other instruments. Facilitating factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work that were identified included access via electronic patient records, implementation of coordinating structures for PRO processes in the center, clear PRO reports that are easy to interpret, and measurements at relevant time points.

Discussion

Clinicians had quite a positive attitude toward PROs and recognized their added value. Inhibiting and facilitating factors of an organizational and technical nature were identified.

Conclusions

These findings indicate how PROs used for quality management purposes may also be used for the management of individual patients. Therefore, existing structures and processes in the certified colorectal cancer centers, as well as lessons learned from the literature on the implementation of PROs monitoring individual patients need to be taken into account.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06457-6.