Piloting prostate cancer patient-reported outcomesin clinical practice

Korzeniowski, Martin; Kalyvas, Maria; Mahmud, Aamer; Shenfield, Carey B.; Tong, Christine; Zaza, Khaled; Howell, Doris; Brundage, Michael

doi:10.1007/s00520-015-2949-5

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Where PROMs were completed prior to a consultation, this could aid HP preparation [27,32,33,36] and promote careful reflection on the part of patients [52,55]. PROMs were also a means to structure consultations and interactions, and aided to prioritise issues of importance [10,29,37,40,42,43,50,57] (see also "Attitudes to the care experience"). Some studies [31,42,48,49] noted that HPs also saw PROMs as prompting patients to identify and prioritise issues from their own perspectives: "Actually, it [using the questionnaire] meant that we talked about issues which we wouldn't otherwise have touched upon because she hadn't thought of it, and I usually don't ask about it / … / it…”

Section: Attitudes To Identifying Patient Issues and Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PROMs data. Some findings suggested that PROMs brought new information to the fore [33,35,41,46,48,49,55,57], while others believed this information was already collected through other means [10,26,32,42,51]. The perceived meaningfulness of PROMs data was linked to the relevance of the items collected to the disease and the needs at different points over the patient's journey [30, 37, 42-45, 52, 56, 57]; "patients' problems vary during treatment and follow-up" [58] (p694).…”

Section: Clinical Usefulness Of Information Studies Revealed Widely Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies (n = 9) reported that PROMs helped HPs to ensure comprehensive coverage of issues and helped to refine the focus and streamline consultations [29,41,42,48,49,51,53,54,58]. HPs saw the potential for this to influence positively decision-making [27,28,31,33,42,45,49,51,52,54]. In other cases, HPs felt PROMs information would have little impact on their practice or were uncertain about how much it influenced their patient management.…”

Section: Attitudes To Managing and Addressing Patient Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Responding PROMs were viewed as generating a range of responses in patient management. Response strategies included: intervention where issues were identified [26,27,32,35,46]; adoption of a more holistic management approach [40,42,45,50]; modification of communication approaches [30,32,39,47,54,56]; and the promotion of patient self-management [44,53]. Study findings also raised the fear that PROMs could bring up issues for which no adequate response existed, particularly in relation to financial difficulties, psychological issues and fatigue [10,28,34,37]: I find it very hard to discuss finances with patients, especially when it comes to, "they say I'm not entitled to any benefits", and I'm thinking, "well I can't do anything about that unfortunately".…”

Section: Attitudes To Managing and Addressing Patient Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Easpaig

Tran

Bierbaum

et al. 2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The adoption of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in cancer care has been widely advocated, but little is known about the evidence for the implementation of PROMs in practice. Qualitative research captures the perspectives of health professionals as end-users of PROMs and can be used to inform adoption efforts. This paper presents a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research conducted to address the question: What are the attitudes of health professionals towards PROMs in oncology, including any barriers and facilitators to the adoption of PROMS, reported in qualitative evidence? Methods: Systematic searches of qualitative evidence were undertaken in four databases and reviewed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies published in English between 1998 and 2018, which reported qualitative findings about the attitudes of health professionals working in oncology towards PROMs were eligible. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme's Qualitative Research Checklist. A sentiment analysis was conducted on primary text to examine the polarity (neutral, positive or negative) of health professionals' views of PROMs. Qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted using a constant comparative analysis. Results: From 1227 articles after duplicates were removed, with 1014 excluded against the screening criteria, 213 full text articles remained and were assessed; 34 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. The majority of studies were of good quality. Sentiment analysis on primary text demonstrated an overall positive polarity from the expressed opinions of health professionals. The meta-synthesis showed health professionals' attitudes in four domains: identifying patient issues and needs using PROMs; managing and addressing patient issues; the care experience; and the integration of PROMs into clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Attitudes To Identifying Patient Issues and Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clinical Usefulness Of Information Studies Revealed Widely Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Attitudes To Managing and Addressing Patient Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Attitudes To Managing and Addressing Patient Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Easpaig

Tran

Bierbaum

et al. 2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…35 In 2016, Cancer Care Ontario began province-wide implementation of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index-Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP). 36,37 This measure has urinary, bowel and sexual function domains that are highly relevant to prostate cancer patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of patient-reported outcomes in regional cancer centres over time: a retrospective study

Barbera

Lee

Sutradhar

2019

cmajo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Since 2007, Cancer Care Ontario has been collecting data using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System as a patient-reported outcome measure for use in routine care. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the factors associated with Edmonton Symptom Assessment System uptake among cancer patients seen at regional cancer centres and to examine if these associations have changed over time. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study among cancer patients eligible to complete Edmonton Symptom Assessment System assessments who were seen at regional cancer centres in Ontario between 2007 and 2015. We used linked administrative sources of health care data. Our primary outcome for each patient was defined as the rate of ESAS assessments, which was analyzed overall and on an annual basis. Results: We identified 525 409 unique patients with at least 1 visit to a cancer centre during the study period. The percentage of patients with at least 1 Edmonton Symptom Assessment System assessment increased from 5% in 2007 to 67% in 2015. Analysis demonstrated that variation by region and by cancer type decreased over time: relative rates for region ranged from 0.31 to 13.3 in 2007 whereas they ranged from 0.7 to 1.56 in 2015, and relative rates for cancer type ranged from 0.03 to 1.0 in 2007 whereas they ranged from 0.55 to 1.0 in 2015. In 2015 women and people living in poorer neighbourhoods had a lower Edmonton Symptom Assessment System uptake (relative rate 0.93 and 0.91, respectively). Interpretation: Ontario has implemented a patient-reported outcome program across the province; over time, uptake has improved and variation by cancer type and region has decreased. Variation persists for other patient characteristics, which suggests that there are opportunities to improve equity in the program.

show abstract

Usability testing of EirV3—a computer-based tool for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer

Krogstad

Sundt-Hansen

Hjermstad

et al. 2018

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Piloting prostate cancer patient-reported outcomesin clinical practice

Cited by 18 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Use of patient-reported outcomes in regional cancer centres over time: a retrospective study

Usability testing of EirV3—a computer-based tool for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About