T Luckett1, P N Butow, M T King. 1. Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. timl@psych.usyd.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent reviews suggest that the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer clinics improves the processes of care but not patient outcomes such as quality of life or satisfaction. We set out to identify future strategies for (1) interventions to impact patient outcomes and (2) trials to identify treatment effects. METHODS: MEDLINE and PsycINFO were systematically searched to identify reports of relevant randomized controlled trials. Intervention and trial designs were compared and contrasted along the parameters identified by previous reviews and the rationales reported in each article. Results were cross-referenced with evidence for impact to develop recommendations. RESULTS: Six articles were identified. Evidence for impact on patient outcomes was limited. Interventions varied according to the PROMs used, the frequency, content and presentation of feedback, and the training offered to medical teams. Trials varied in their unit of randomization, outcome measures, control of contamination, monitoring of PROM use, and length of follow-up. Our analysis identified the need for future interventions to ensure that PROM data are used to optimum effect and for trials to control for contamination and monitor use of PROMs to link this with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions should motivate and equip health professionals to use PROM data in managing patients, train patients in self-efficacy, use more specific PROMs in clinic, improve the interpretability of feedback for both medical staff and patients, and monitor the use of PROMs to intervene when problems arise. Future trials should use a cluster-randomized design to control for contamination and enable systems-based interventions.
OBJECTIVES: Recent reviews suggest that the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer clinics improves the processes of care but not patient outcomes such as quality of life or satisfaction. We set out to identify future strategies for (1) interventions to impact patient outcomes and (2) trials to identify treatment effects. METHODS: MEDLINE and PsycINFO were systematically searched to identify reports of relevant randomized controlled trials. Intervention and trial designs were compared and contrasted along the parameters identified by previous reviews and the rationales reported in each article. Results were cross-referenced with evidence for impact to develop recommendations. RESULTS: Six articles were identified. Evidence for impact on patient outcomes was limited. Interventions varied according to the PROMs used, the frequency, content and presentation of feedback, and the training offered to medical teams. Trials varied in their unit of randomization, outcome measures, control of contamination, monitoring of PROM use, and length of follow-up. Our analysis identified the need for future interventions to ensure that PROM data are used to optimum effect and for trials to control for contamination and monitor use of PROMs to link this with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions should motivate and equip health professionals to use PROM data in managing patients, train patients in self-efficacy, use more specific PROMs in clinic, improve the interpretability of feedback for both medical staff and patients, and monitor the use of PROMs to intervene when problems arise. Future trials should use a cluster-randomized design to control for contamination and enable systems-based interventions.
Authors: Pierre Michel; Pascal Auquier; Karine Baumstarck; Anderson Loundou; Badih Ghattas; Christophe Lançon; Laurent Boyer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Lisa M Wintner; Johannes M Giesinger; Georg Kemmler; Monika Sztankay; Anne Oberguggenberger; Eva-Maria Gamper; Barbara Sperner-Unterweger; Bernhard Holzner Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Joanne M Shaw; Melanie A Price; Josephine M Clayton; Peter Grimison; Tim Shaw; Nicole Rankin; Phyllis N Butow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Maud Wieczorek; Christine Rotonda; Jonathan Epstein; Francis Guillemin; Anne-Christine Rat Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Joanne Wolfe; Liliana Orellana; E Francis Cook; Christina Ullrich; Tammy Kang; Jeffrey Russell Geyer; Chris Feudtner; Jane C Weeks; Veronica Dussel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Keiki Hinami; Jennifer Smith; Catherine D Deamant; Romina Kee; Diana Garcia; William E Trick Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-12-07 Impact factor: 4.147