Reshma Jagsi1, Anne Chiang, Blase N Polite, Bruno C Medeiros, Kristen McNiff, Amy P Abernethy, Robin Zon, Patrick J Loehrer. 1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Stanford University, Stanford, CA; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Duke University, Durham, NC; Michiana Hematology/Oncology, South Bend; and Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is growing interest in incorporating routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into cancer care. Practicing oncologists are a stakeholder group whose views are not well characterized. METHODS: We developed an interview guide after literature review and in-depth interviews with leaders in the field. We conducted 45-minute semistructured interviews with a diverse sample of medical oncologists identified through affiliation with the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative or a minority-based Community Clinical Oncology Program until thematic saturation. Multiple analysts independently reviewed and thematically coded verbatim transcripts. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews were conducted with oncologists from 15 states. Emergent themes included variable understanding and experience with PROs. There was enthusiasm for the potential of PROs to improve the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter. Fundamental concerns included information overload, possibility of identifying problems without access to intervention, depersonalization of the physician-patient encounter, cost, and inefficiency. Barriers identified included the need for buy-in from other stakeholders in the practice, lack of appropriate referral resources, staffing needs, and technology concerns. Few identified patient compliance, data sharing/privacy, or medical liability as a major barrier to implementation. CONCLUSION: Practicing oncologists had variable understanding of the details of PROs but, when introduced to the concept, recognized utility in improving the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter if implemented properly. The time is right to begin pilot testing such measures with community oncologists so they can lend their expertise to national discussions on which measures to use and how best to use them.
PURPOSE: There is growing interest in incorporating routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into cancer care. Practicing oncologists are a stakeholder group whose views are not well characterized. METHODS: We developed an interview guide after literature review and in-depth interviews with leaders in the field. We conducted 45-minute semistructured interviews with a diverse sample of medical oncologists identified through affiliation with the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative or a minority-based Community Clinical Oncology Program until thematic saturation. Multiple analysts independently reviewed and thematically coded verbatim transcripts. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews were conducted with oncologists from 15 states. Emergent themes included variable understanding and experience with PROs. There was enthusiasm for the potential of PROs to improve the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter. Fundamental concerns included information overload, possibility of identifying problems without access to intervention, depersonalization of the physician-patient encounter, cost, and inefficiency. Barriers identified included the need for buy-in from other stakeholders in the practice, lack of appropriate referral resources, staffing needs, and technology concerns. Few identified patient compliance, data sharing/privacy, or medical liability as a major barrier to implementation. CONCLUSION: Practicing oncologists had variable understanding of the details of PROs but, when introduced to the concept, recognized utility in improving the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter if implemented properly. The time is right to begin pilot testing such measures with community oncologists so they can lend their expertise to national discussions on which measures to use and how best to use them.
Authors: Renee A Cowan; Rudy S Suidan; Vaagn Andikyan; Youssef A Rezk; M Heather Einstein; Kaity Chang; Jeanne Carter; Oliver Zivanovic; Elizabeth J Jewell; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Ethan Basch; Dennis S Chi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Heike Schmidt; Daniela Merkel; Michael Koehler; Hans-Henning Flechtner; Jörg Sigle; Bernd Klinge; Karin Jordan; Dirk Vordermark; Margarete Landenberger; Patrick Jahn Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lisa M Wintner; Monika Sztankay; David Riedl; Gerhard Rumpold; Alain Nickels; Thomas Licht; Bernhard Holzner Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Angela Stover; Debra E Irwin; Ronald C Chen; Bhishamjit S Chera; Deborah K Mayer; Hyman B Muss; Donald L Rosenstein; Thomas C Shea; William A Wood; Jessica C Lyons; Bryce B Reeve Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2015-10-29
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