L Y Yang1, D S Manhas1, A F Howard2, R A Olson3,4. 1. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 317-2194 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada. 2. School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, 201-2211 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada. 3. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 317-2194 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada. rolson2@bccancer.bc.ca. 4. Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer Agency-Centre for the North, 1215 Lethbridge St, Prince George, BC, V2M 7E9, Canada. rolson2@bccancer.bc.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an increasingly popular tool to optimize care and bridge the gap between patient experience and clinician understanding. The aim of this review was to identify mechanisms through which PROs facilitate patient-clinician communication in the adult oncology population. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature using the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cab Direct, and CDSR. Studies included in this review reported on the outcomes of PRO use, used PROs as an intervention and not as a study outcome measurement tool, included cancer patients or survivors as study participants, and analyzed patient-clinician communication. RESULTS: We identified 610 unique records, of which 43 publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Synthesis of the reviewed studies provided evidence of the usefulness of PROs in facilitating patient-clinician communication on a variety of topics. We identified mechanisms though which PROs influenced patient-clinician communication to include increasing symptom awareness, prompting discussion, streamlining consultations, and facilitating inter-professional communication. Barriers to PRO use in communication improvement include technical problems impeding its administration and completion, compliance issues due to lack of incentive or forgetfulness, and use of PROs that do not appropriately assess issues relevant to the patient. Facilitators include increased education on PRO use, using PRO tools that patients find more acceptable, and providing patient data summaries in an easily accessible format for clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that PROs facilitate patient-clinician communication through various mechanisms that could perhaps contribute to improvements in symptom management and survival. The impact of PROs on clinical outcomes, however, remains poorly studied.
PURPOSE:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an increasingly popular tool to optimize care and bridge the gap between patient experience and clinician understanding. The aim of this review was to identify mechanisms through which PROs facilitate patient-clinician communication in the adult oncology population. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature using the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cab Direct, and CDSR. Studies included in this review reported on the outcomes of PRO use, used PROs as an intervention and not as a study outcome measurement tool, included cancerpatients or survivors as study participants, and analyzed patient-clinician communication. RESULTS: We identified 610 unique records, of which 43 publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Synthesis of the reviewed studies provided evidence of the usefulness of PROs in facilitating patient-clinician communication on a variety of topics. We identified mechanisms though which PROs influenced patient-clinician communication to include increasing symptom awareness, prompting discussion, streamlining consultations, and facilitating inter-professional communication. Barriers to PRO use in communication improvement include technical problems impeding its administration and completion, compliance issues due to lack of incentive or forgetfulness, and use of PROs that do not appropriately assess issues relevant to the patient. Facilitators include increased education on PRO use, using PRO tools that patients find more acceptable, and providing patient data summaries in an easily accessible format for clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that PROs facilitate patient-clinician communication through various mechanisms that could perhaps contribute to improvements in symptom management and survival. The impact of PROs on clinical outcomes, however, remains poorly studied.
Authors: Johanna Hoekstra; Rien de Vos; Nico P van Duijn; Egbert Schadé; Patrick J E Bindels Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: P Taenzer; B D Bultz; L E Carlson; M Speca; T DeGagne; K Olson; R Doll; Z Rosberger Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2000 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Diana J Wilkie; M Kay M Judge; Donna L Berry; Jean Dell; Shiping Zong; Rudy Gilespie Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mikkael A Sekeres; Steven D Gore; Donald M Stablein; Nancy DiFronzo; Gregory A Abel; Amy E DeZern; Jesse D Troy; Dana E Rollison; John W Thomas; Myron A Waclawiw; Jane Jijun Liu; Tareq Al Baghdadi; Matthew J Walter; Rafael Bejar; Edward J Gorak; Daniel T Starczynowski; James M Foran; James R Cerhan; Lynn C Moscinski; Rami S Komrokji; H Joachim Deeg; Pearlie K Epling-Burnette Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2019-05-21
Authors: Shannon M Nugent; Sara E Golden; Charles R Thomas; Mark E Deffebach; Mithran S Sukumar; Paul H Schipper; Brandon H Tieu; Drew Moghanaki; Juan Wisnivesky; Christopher Slatore Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: S Ahmed; L Barbera; S J Bartlett; D G Bebb; M Brundage; S Bryan; W Y Cheung; N Coburn; T Crump; L Cuthbertson; D Howell; A F Klassen; S Leduc; M Li; N E Mayo; G McKinnon; R Olson; J Pink; J W Robinson; M J Santana; R Sawatzky; R S Moxam; S Sinclair; F Servidio-Italiano; W Temple Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Stephanie L Pugh; Joseph P Rodgers; Jennifer Moughan; Roseann Bonanni; Jaskaran Boparai; Ronald C Chen; James J Dignam; Deborah W Bruner Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Janet H Van Cleave; Mei R Fu; Antonia V Bennett; Catherine Concert; Ann Riccobene; Anh Tran; Allison Most; Maria Kamberi; Jacqueline Mojica; Justin Savitski; Elise Kusche; Mark S Persky; Zujun Li; Adam S Jacobson; Kenneth S Hu; Michael J Persky; Eva Liang; Patricia M Corby; Brian L Egleston Journal: Mhealth Date: 2021-01-20
Authors: Clara Breidenbach; Christoph Kowalski; Simone Wesselmann; Nora Tabea Sibert Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: An Chen; Kirsi Väyrynen; Riikka-Leena Leskelä; Seppo Heinonen; Paul Lillrank; Aydin Tekay; Paulus Torkki Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 2.655