PURPOSE: To investigate relevant patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains for oncology clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional semi-structured telephone interviews with patients with breast and prostate cancer and clinicians. Using open-ended questions followed by structured prompts of PRO domains, subjects were asked what they currently discuss during visits and which topics are relevant for a clinical practice PRO. For each domain, we calculated the percentage of patients and clinicians who responded positively. A qualitative thematic content analysis identified barriers and benefits of using PROs in clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients (21 breast cancer and 20 prostate cancer) and 15 clinicians (7 medical oncologists, 5 radiation oncologists, and 3 surgeons) completed the interviews. In general, clinicians and patients reported that the topics explored were relevant. Barriers to using PROs in clinical practice include (1) time constraints, (2) varying relevance of questions, (3) value of the conversational approach, (4) decreased usefulness in established relationships, and (5) respondent burden. Benefits of PROs in clinical practice include (1) identifying problems, (2) serving as a reminder of topics to discuss, and (3) tracking changes over time. CONCLUSIONS: PROs in clinical practice may help triage issues and focus discussions. Computer-adaptive tests should be explored to tailor questionnaires to patients' specific issues.
PURPOSE: To investigate relevant patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains for oncology clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional semi-structured telephone interviews with patients with breast and prostate cancer and clinicians. Using open-ended questions followed by structured prompts of PRO domains, subjects were asked what they currently discuss during visits and which topics are relevant for a clinical practice PRO. For each domain, we calculated the percentage of patients and clinicians who responded positively. A qualitative thematic content analysis identified barriers and benefits of using PROs in clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients (21 breast cancer and 20 prostate cancer) and 15 clinicians (7 medical oncologists, 5 radiation oncologists, and 3 surgeons) completed the interviews. In general, clinicians and patients reported that the topics explored were relevant. Barriers to using PROs in clinical practice include (1) time constraints, (2) varying relevance of questions, (3) value of the conversational approach, (4) decreased usefulness in established relationships, and (5) respondent burden. Benefits of PROs in clinical practice include (1) identifying problems, (2) serving as a reminder of topics to discuss, and (3) tracking changes over time. CONCLUSIONS: PROs in clinical practice may help triage issues and focus discussions. Computer-adaptive tests should be explored to tailor questionnaires to patients' specific issues.
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Sydney M Dy; Danetta E Hendricks; Julie R Brahmer; Michael A Carducci; Antonio C Wolff; Albert W Wu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Galina Velikova; Noha Awad; Rebecca Coles-Gale; E Penny Wright; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.894
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: Claire F Snyder; Joseph M Herman; Sharon M White; Brandon S Luber; Amanda L Blackford; Michael A Carducci; Albert W Wu Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Naomi C Brownstein; Anna Barata; Adam P Dicker; Hans Knoop; Brian D Gonzalez; Randa Perkins; Dana Rollison; Scott M Gilbert; Ronica Nanda; Anders Berglund; Ross Mitchell; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jennifer Barsky Reese; Amanda Blackford; Jonathan Sussman; Toru Okuyama; Tatsuo Akechi; Daryl Bainbridge; Doris Howell; Claire F Snyder Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Albert W Wu; Robert S Miller; Roxanne E Jensen; Elissa T Bantug; Antonio C Wolff Journal: Cancer J Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Lynne I Wagner; Julian Schink; Michael Bass; Shalini Patel; Maria Varela Diaz; Nan Rothrock; Timothy Pearman; Richard Gershon; Frank J Penedo; Steven Rosen; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Mark A Clark; John V Cox; Burton M Needles; Carole Seigel; Bijal A Balasubramanian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: David Cella; Seung Choi; Sofia Garcia; Karon F Cook; Sarah Rosenbloom; Jin-Shei Lai; Donna Surges Tatum; Richard Gershon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147