N Corsini1, J Fish2,3, I Ramsey2, G Sharplin2, I Flight2,3, R Damarell3, B Wiggins2, C Wilson2,3, D Roder4, M Eckert2,4. 1. Cancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, SA, 5063, Australia. ncorsini@cancersa.org.au. 2. Cancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, SA, 5063, Australia. 3. Flinders University of South Australia, Sturt Rd, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia. 4. University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic narrative review describes and compares the development and operational approaches of monitoring systems without a clinical care component that collect patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from cancer survivors. METHODS: Searches were conducted using Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database and Google Scholar (Advanced). Sources of grey literature and websites of relevant organisations were also searched for relevant published and unpublished material. Articles were included if they described the development (including piloting) of monitoring systems with ongoing recruitment that collect PRO at more than one time point, from 6 months post-diagnosis onward. RESULTS: The initial searches returned 7290 unique citations. After screening titles and abstracts, 39 full-text articles were retrieved for more detailed examination. Eleven articles were included in the review, representing seven international monitoring systems. Systems varied in their scope, implementation process, governance and administration, recruitment and data collection, consent rates, PRO collection, use of PRO and translation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The most suitable approach for setting-up and implementing a monitoring system for ongoing surveillance will differ depending on the unique requirements, aims and level of resourcing available within a particular context. Better specification and consideration of how PRO data will be used, for what purpose, and by whom, is required to inform effective translational strategies to improve outcomes for cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The findings from this review may inform the future development of survivorship monitoring systems in varied environments, which in turn may improve practices that lead to better outcomes for survivors.
PURPOSE: This systematic narrative review describes and compares the development and operational approaches of monitoring systems without a clinical care component that collect patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from cancer survivors. METHODS: Searches were conducted using Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database and Google Scholar (Advanced). Sources of grey literature and websites of relevant organisations were also searched for relevant published and unpublished material. Articles were included if they described the development (including piloting) of monitoring systems with ongoing recruitment that collect PRO at more than one time point, from 6 months post-diagnosis onward. RESULTS: The initial searches returned 7290 unique citations. After screening titles and abstracts, 39 full-text articles were retrieved for more detailed examination. Eleven articles were included in the review, representing seven international monitoring systems. Systems varied in their scope, implementation process, governance and administration, recruitment and data collection, consent rates, PRO collection, use of PRO and translation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The most suitable approach for setting-up and implementing a monitoring system for ongoing surveillance will differ depending on the unique requirements, aims and level of resourcing available within a particular context. Better specification and consideration of how PRO data will be used, for what purpose, and by whom, is required to inform effective translational strategies to improve outcomes for cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The findings from this review may inform the future development of survivorship monitoring systems in varied environments, which in turn may improve practices that lead to better outcomes for survivors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer survivorship; Oncology; Patient-reported outcomes; Quality of life; Registry; Surveillance
Authors: Tenbroeck G Smith; Kathleen M Castro; Alyssa N Troeschel; Neeraj K Arora; Joseph Lipscomb; Shelton M Jones; Katherine A Treiman; Connie Hobbs; Ryan M McCabe; Steven B Clauser Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Neeraj K Arora; Ann S Hamilton; Arnold L Potosky; Julia H Rowland; Noreen M Aziz; Keith M Bellizzi; Carrie N Klabunde; Wendy McLaughlin; Jennifer Stevens Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Laura Ashley; Helen Jones; James Thomas; Alex Newsham; Amy Downing; Eva Morris; Julia Brown; Galina Velikova; David Forman; Penny Wright Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Olga Husson; Belle H de Rooij; Jacobien Kieffer; Simone Oerlemans; Floortje Mols; Neil K Aaronson; Winette T A van der Graaf; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-31
Authors: Udit Singhal; Ted A Skolarus; John L Gore; Matthew G Parry; Ronald C Chen; Julie Nossiter; Alan Paniagua-Cruz; Arvin K George; Paul Cathcart; Jan van der Meulen; Daniela A Wittmann Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 16.430
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: Olga Husson; Belle H de Rooij; Jacobien Kieffer; Simone Oerlemans; Floortje Mols; Neil K Aaronson; Winette T A van der Graaf; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-31