PURPOSE: To understand oncologists' attitudes toward patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and to learn how PRO data influence their clinical decision-making. METHODS: Twenty practicing oncologists participated in 1 of 4 semi-structured focus groups. RESULTS: Most oncologists had no experience with PRO measures, but were able to identify several concepts appropriate for patient-reported assessment. Participants agreed that clinical measures such as performance status were more meaningful to them, but acknowledged that PRO measures were more appropriate for assessing patient symptoms and treatment response. All oncologists believed that clinical efficacy and toxicity data were of primary importance, but that PROs become increasingly important when multiple treatments are available, in advanced or incurable disease, and in palliative care. Several issues prevented oncologists from being able to draw meaningful conclusions from PRO data: lack of familiarity with PRO measures, being presented with too much data to process, lack of clarity around a meaningful change in PRO measure scores, and lack of standardization in the use of PRO measures. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists indicated that PRO data are most influential in advanced or incurable disease and in palliative care. Improving the interpretability of PRO measures could increase the usefulness of PRO data in treatment decision-making.
PURPOSE: To understand oncologists' attitudes toward patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and to learn how PRO data influence their clinical decision-making. METHODS: Twenty practicing oncologists participated in 1 of 4 semi-structured focus groups. RESULTS: Most oncologists had no experience with PRO measures, but were able to identify several concepts appropriate for patient-reported assessment. Participants agreed that clinical measures such as performance status were more meaningful to them, but acknowledged that PRO measures were more appropriate for assessing patient symptoms and treatment response. All oncologists believed that clinical efficacy and toxicity data were of primary importance, but that PROs become increasingly important when multiple treatments are available, in advanced or incurable disease, and in palliative care. Several issues prevented oncologists from being able to draw meaningful conclusions from PRO data: lack of familiarity with PRO measures, being presented with too much data to process, lack of clarity around a meaningful change in PRO measure scores, and lack of standardization in the use of PRO measures. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists indicated that PRO data are most influential in advanced or incurable disease and in palliative care. Improving the interpretability of PRO measures could increase the usefulness of PRO data in treatment decision-making.
Authors: Jeff A Sloan; Marlene H Frost; Rick Berzon; Amylou Dueck; Gordon Guyatt; Carol Moinpour; Mirjam Sprangers; Carol Ferrans; David Cella Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: D F Cella; D S Tulsky; G Gray; B Sarafian; E Linn; A Bonomi; M Silberman; S B Yellen; P Winicour; J Brannon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Julie Rouette; Jane Blazeby; Madeleine King; Melanie Calvert; Yingwei Peng; Ralph M Meyer; Jolie Ringash; Melanie Walker; Michael D Brundage Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Marta Gil-Lacruz; María Luisa Gracia-Pérez; Ana Isabel Gil-Lacruz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-04-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig; Yvonne Tran; Mia Bierbaum; Gaston Arnolda; Geoff P Delaney; Winston Liauw; Robyn L Ward; Ian Olver; David Currow; Afaf Girgis; Ivana Durcinoska; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 2.655