OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare doctors' and nurses' views and experiences regarding outcome measurement in palliative care, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: A web-based survey developed through expert review and piloting was conducted in Europe and Africa with palliative care professionals working in clinical care, audit and research. RESULTS: The overall participation rate was 42% (663/1592) and the overall completion rate was 59% (392/663). Of these respondents, 196 were doctors (51% male, mean 47 years) and 104 were nurses (84% female, mean 45 years). Doctors' most common reported reasons for not using tools were time constraints followed by lack of training. For nurses, it was lack of training followed by time constraints. Provision of information and guidance influenced willingness to use measures. For those that used tools, most reported favourable outcome measurement experiences. Both prioritized brief PROMs, and measures that included physical and psychological domains. For clinical purposes, the main advantage for doctors was assessment/screening, and clinical decision making for nurses. For research, doctors were most influenced by a measure's comparability with national/international literature followed by its validation in palliative care. For nurses, validation in palliative care was followed by tool access. CONCLUSION: Overall these respondents shared similar views and experiences, and both were influenced by similar factors. Multidisciplinary outcome measurement education and training is feasible and required. Multidimensional and brief PROMs that include physical and psychological domains need to be prioritized, and access to freely available, validated and translated tools is needed to ensure cross-national comparisons and coordination of international research.
OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare doctors' and nurses' views and experiences regarding outcome measurement in palliative care, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: A web-based survey developed through expert review and piloting was conducted in Europe and Africa with palliative care professionals working in clinical care, audit and research. RESULTS: The overall participation rate was 42% (663/1592) and the overall completion rate was 59% (392/663). Of these respondents, 196 were doctors (51% male, mean 47 years) and 104 were nurses (84% female, mean 45 years). Doctors' most common reported reasons for not using tools were time constraints followed by lack of training. For nurses, it was lack of training followed by time constraints. Provision of information and guidance influenced willingness to use measures. For those that used tools, most reported favourable outcome measurement experiences. Both prioritized brief PROMs, and measures that included physical and psychological domains. For clinical purposes, the main advantage for doctors was assessment/screening, and clinical decision making for nurses. For research, doctors were most influenced by a measure's comparability with national/international literature followed by its validation in palliative care. For nurses, validation in palliative care was followed by tool access. CONCLUSION: Overall these respondents shared similar views and experiences, and both were influenced by similar factors. Multidisciplinary outcome measurement education and training is feasible and required. Multidimensional and brief PROMs that include physical and psychological domains need to be prioritized, and access to freely available, validated and translated tools is needed to ensure cross-national comparisons and coordination of international research.
Authors: Rosalind Parkes-Ratanshi; Ruth Kikonyogo; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Edith Nakku-Joloba; Yukari C Manabe; Charlotte A Gaydos; Anne Rompalo Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Richard Harding; Richard A Powell; Eve Namisango; Anne Merriman; Nancy Gikaara; Zipporah Ali; Irene J Higginson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Steffen T Simon; Irene J Higginson; Richard Harding; Barbara A Daveson; Marjolein Gysels; Luc Deliens; Michael A Echteld; Lukas Radbruch; Franco Toscani; Dominik M Krzyzanowski; Massimo Costantini; Julia Downing; Pedro L Ferreira; Abdelhamid Benalia; Claudia Bausewein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Julia Downing; Steffen T Simon; Faith N Mwangi-Powell; Hamid Benalia; Barbara A Daveson; Irene J Higginson; Richard Harding; Claudia Bausewein Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Freya Trautmann; Leopold Hentschel; Beate Hornemann; Anke Rentsch; Michael Baumann; Gerhard Ehninger; Jochen Schmitt; Markus Schuler Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Barbara A Daveson; Juan P Alonso; Natalia Calanzani; Christina Ramsenthaler; Marjolein Gysels; Barbara Antunes; Katrien Moens; Esther I Groeneveld; Gwenda Albers; Silvia Finetti; Francesca Pettenati; Claudia Bausewein; Irene J Higginson; Richard Harding; Luc Deliens; Franco Toscani; Pedro L Ferreira; Lucas Ceulemans; Barbara Gomes Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Andy Bradshaw; Martina Santarelli; Malene Mulderrig; Assem Khamis; Kathryn Sartain; Jason W Boland; Michael I Bennett; Miriam Johnson; Mark Pearson; Fliss E M Murtagh Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 4.762