Natasha Camuso1, Prerna Bajaj1, Deborah Dudgeon1,2, Gunita Mitera3,4. 1. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, 1 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2P1, Canada. 2. Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. 3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 4th Floor, 155 College St, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada. Gunita.Mitera@utoronto.ca. 4. The College of Family Physicians of Canada, 2630 Skymark Avenue, Mississauga, ON, L4W 5A4, Canada. Gunita.Mitera@utoronto.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Tools to collect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used in the healthcare setting to collect information that is most meaningful to patients. Due to discordance among how patients and healthcare providers rank symptoms that are considered most meaningful to the patient, engagement of patients in the development of PROMs is extremely important. This review aimed to identify studies that described how patients are involved in the item generation stage of cancer-specific PROM tools developed for cancer patients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using keywords relevant to PROMs, cancer, and patient engagement. A manual search of relevant reference lists was also conducted. Inclusion criteria stipulated that publications must describe patient engagement in the item generation stage of development of cancer-specific PROM tools. Results were excluded if they were duplicate findings or non-English. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 230 publications. After removal of duplicates and review of publications, 6 were deemed relevant. Fourteen additional publications were retrieved through a manual search of references from relevant publications. A total of 13 unique PROM tools that included patient input in item generation were identified. The most common method of patient engagement was through qualitative interviews or focus groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations from international groups and the emphasized importance of incorporating patient feedback in all stages of development of PROMs, few unique tools have incorporated patient input in item generation of cancer-specific tools. Moving forward, a framework of best practices on how to best engage patients in developing PROMs is warranted to support high-quality patient-centered care.
PURPOSE: Tools to collect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used in the healthcare setting to collect information that is most meaningful to patients. Due to discordance among how patients and healthcare providers rank symptoms that are considered most meaningful to the patient, engagement of patients in the development of PROMs is extremely important. This review aimed to identify studies that described how patients are involved in the item generation stage of cancer-specific PROM tools developed for cancerpatients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using keywords relevant to PROMs, cancer, and patient engagement. A manual search of relevant reference lists was also conducted. Inclusion criteria stipulated that publications must describe patient engagement in the item generation stage of development of cancer-specific PROM tools. Results were excluded if they were duplicate findings or non-English. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 230 publications. After removal of duplicates and review of publications, 6 were deemed relevant. Fourteen additional publications were retrieved through a manual search of references from relevant publications. A total of 13 unique PROM tools that included patient input in item generation were identified. The most common method of patient engagement was through qualitative interviews or focus groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations from international groups and the emphasized importance of incorporating patient feedback in all stages of development of PROMs, few unique tools have incorporated patient input in item generation of cancer-specific tools. Moving forward, a framework of best practices on how to best engage patients in developing PROMs is warranted to support high-quality patient-centered care.
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Diana D Jeffery; Francis J Keefe; Laura S Porter; Rebecca A Shelby; Maria R Fawzy; Tracy K Gosselin; Bryce B Reeve; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: John S Rhee; B Alex Matthews; Marcy Neuburg; Brent R Logan; Mary Burzynski; Ann B Nattinger Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Susan D Mathias; Mary-Margaret Chren; Hilary H Colwell; Yeun Mi Yim; Carolina Reyes; Diana M Chen; Scott W Fosko Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 10.282
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: Erica H Lee; Anne F Klassen; Kishwer S Nehal; Stefan J Cano; Janet Waters; Andrea L Pusic Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Margaret Rothman; Laurie Burke; Pennifer Erickson; Nancy Kline Leidy; Donald L Patrick; Charles D Petrie Journal: Value Health Date: 2009-09-25 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Robin R Whitebird; Leif I Solberg; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Christine K Norton; Ella A Chrenka; Marc Swiontkowski; Megan Reams; Elizabeth S Grossman Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Kerry Ettridge; Joanna Caruso; David Roder; Ivanka Prichard; Katrine Scharling-Gamba; Kathleen Wright; Caroline Miller Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Emma Dunlop; Aimee Ferguson; Tanja Mueller; Kelly Baillie; Julie Clarke; Jennifer Laskey; Amanj Kurdi; Olivia Wu; Rob Jones; Hilary Glen; Marion Bennie Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 3.359