Biqi Zhang1, Whit Lloyd1, Mohammad Jahanzeb1, Michael J Hassett1. 1. Harvard Medical School; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Washington, DC; University of Miami, Deerfield Beach, FL.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice has been associated with improved survival and quality of life for patients with cancer. However, this application of PROs is relatively new, and little is known about how practices collect PROs, which PROs are measured, and what challenges are met in implementation. METHODS: We surveyed Quality Oncology Practice Initiative-registered practices in December 2015 to understand the current state of PROs use and identify areas where implementation support may be needed. PRO collectors were asked to describe their views, practices, and challenges with implementation; noncollectors were asked about their interest in and perceived barriers to collection. RESULTS: Eighty-nine practices (38% of those that viewed the participation request) completed ≥ 50% of the survey and comprised the analytic sample. Most (79%) responders noted that collecting PROs was a high priority; slightly fewer actually collected PROs (69%). Most collectors (79%) were affiliated with hospitals or medical centers, and nearly all (94%) had electronic health records (EHRs). Collectors saw more patients per week than noncollectors ( P < .01). The PROs used by collectors addressed several topics, including patient distress (78%), symptoms (76%), and experience or satisfaction (70%). Perceived implementation challenges were similar for collectors and noncollectors: patient unwillingness to complete questionnaires and insufficient staff support; noncollectors additionally cited lack of PRO integration in the electronic health records. CONCLUSION: Widespread agreement that PRO collection is important has led to early adoption among a sizable minority of Quality Oncology Practice Initiative practices. Reaching consensus regarding which PROs are meaningful and developing and sharing best-practices that overcome implementation barriers could facilitate implementation and maximize PRO utility.
PURPOSE: Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice has been associated with improved survival and quality of life for patients with cancer. However, this application of PROs is relatively new, and little is known about how practices collect PROs, which PROs are measured, and what challenges are met in implementation. METHODS: We surveyed Quality Oncology Practice Initiative-registered practices in December 2015 to understand the current state of PROs use and identify areas where implementation support may be needed. PRO collectors were asked to describe their views, practices, and challenges with implementation; noncollectors were asked about their interest in and perceived barriers to collection. RESULTS: Eighty-nine practices (38% of those that viewed the participation request) completed ≥ 50% of the survey and comprised the analytic sample. Most (79%) responders noted that collecting PROs was a high priority; slightly fewer actually collected PROs (69%). Most collectors (79%) were affiliated with hospitals or medical centers, and nearly all (94%) had electronic health records (EHRs). Collectors saw more patients per week than noncollectors ( P < .01). The PROs used by collectors addressed several topics, including patient distress (78%), symptoms (76%), and experience or satisfaction (70%). Perceived implementation challenges were similar for collectors and noncollectors: patient unwillingness to complete questionnaires and insufficient staff support; noncollectors additionally cited lack of PRO integration in the electronic health records. CONCLUSION: Widespread agreement that PRO collection is important has led to early adoption among a sizable minority of Quality Oncology Practice Initiative practices. Reaching consensus regarding which PROs are meaningful and developing and sharing best-practices that overcome implementation barriers could facilitate implementation and maximize PRO utility.
Authors: Larissa Nekhlyudov; Michelle A Mollica; Paul B Jacobsen; Deborah K Mayer; Lawrence N Shulman; Ann M Geiger Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Tenbroeck G Smith; Asher E Beckwitt; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Jeuneviette E Bontemps-Jones; Ted A James; Ryan M McCabe; Amanda B Francescatti; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Angela M Stover; Casey L Daniel; Andres Azuero; Chao-Hui Sylvia Huang; Stacey A Ingram; Jeffrey A Franks; Nicole E Caston; D' Ambra N Dent; Ethan M Basch; Bradford E Jackson; Doris Howell; Bryan J Weiner; Jennifer Young Pierce Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Colby J Hyland; Ruby Guo; Ravi Dhawan; Manraj N Kaur; Paul A Bain; Maria O Edelen; Andrea L Pusic Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2022-03-07
Authors: Pamela W Duncan; Rica M Abbott; Scott Rushing; Anna M Johnson; Christina N Condon; Sarah L Lycan; Barbara J Lutz; Doyle M Cummings; Amy M Pastva; Ralph B D'Agostino; Jeanette M Stafford; Robert M Amoroso; Sara B Jones; Matthew A Psioda; Sabina B Gesell; Wayne D Rosamond; Janet Prvu-Bettger; Mysha E Sissine; Mark D Boynton; Cheryl D Bushnell Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2018-08