Srinivas Joga Ivatury1,2, Hannah W Hazard-Jenkins3, Gabriel A Brooks4,5, Nadine J McCleary6, Sandra L Wong4,5, Deborah Schrag6. 1. Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. jivatury@dartmouth.edu. 2. Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH, USA. jivatury@dartmouth.edu. 3. West Virginia University Cancer Institute, Morgantown, WV, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. 5. Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH, USA. 6. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical trials in oncology evaluating the effects of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) collection have found that monitoring of symptoms with PROs is associated with improved clinical care through reduced acute care utilization and decreased patient symptom burden. This educational review will evaluate strategies for systematic PRO integration into everyday oncology clinical practice. METHODS: We outline key considerations for using PROs in clinical practice, highlighting evidence from published studies. We also discuss the benefits and challenges of PRO implementation in oncology. RESULTS: Implementing PRO collection in clinical practice can improve care delivery and facilitate patient-centered clinical research. Considerations for using PROs in clinical practice include choice of instrument, method of delivery, and frequency of query. Challenges with implementing systematic PRO collection include the costs and resources needed for implementation, impact on clinical workflow, and controlling/monitoring physician burnout. CONCLUSIONS: While challenges exist in terms of financial resources and staff participation/burnout, patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice provide a number of benefits, including symptom monitoring, clinical research, and potential real-time personalized clinical-decision support.
PURPOSE: Clinical trials in oncology evaluating the effects of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) collection have found that monitoring of symptoms with PROs is associated with improved clinical care through reduced acute care utilization and decreased patient symptom burden. This educational review will evaluate strategies for systematic PRO integration into everyday oncology clinical practice. METHODS: We outline key considerations for using PROs in clinical practice, highlighting evidence from published studies. We also discuss the benefits and challenges of PRO implementation in oncology. RESULTS: Implementing PRO collection in clinical practice can improve care delivery and facilitate patient-centered clinical research. Considerations for using PROs in clinical practice include choice of instrument, method of delivery, and frequency of query. Challenges with implementing systematic PRO collection include the costs and resources needed for implementation, impact on clinical workflow, and controlling/monitoring physician burnout. CONCLUSIONS: While challenges exist in terms of financial resources and staff participation/burnout, patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice provide a number of benefits, including symptom monitoring, clinical research, and potential real-time personalized clinical-decision support.
Authors: M Christopher Gibbons; Renee F Wilson; Lipika Samal; Christoph U Lehman; Kay Dickersin; Harold P Lehmann; Hanan Aboumatar; Joseph Finkelstein; Erica Shelton; Ritu Sharma; Eric B Bass Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) Date: 2009-10
Authors: James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Brett Hanscom; Jonathan S Skinner; William A Abdu; Alan S Hilibrand; Scott D Boden; Richard A Deyo Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-11-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: L Heyworth; K Kleinman; S Oddleifson; L Bernstein; J Frampton; M Lehrer; K Salvato; T W Weiss; S R Simon; M Connelly Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Galina Velikova; Ada Keding; Clare Harley; Kim Cocks; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Penny Wright; Peter J Selby; Julia M Brown Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Ethan Basch; Allison M Deal; Mark G Kris; Howard I Scher; Clifford A Hudis; Paul Sabbatini; Lauren Rogak; Antonia V Bennett; Amylou C Dueck; Thomas M Atkinson; Joanne F Chou; Dorothy Dulko; Laura Sit; Allison Barz; Paul Novotny; Michael Fruscione; Jeff A Sloan; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Christine Sinsky; Lacey Colligan; Ling Li; Mirela Prgomet; Sam Reynolds; Lindsey Goeders; Johanna Westbrook; Michael Tutty; George Blike Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elizabeth J Polter; Nidhi Kohli; B R Simon Rosser; Kristine M C Talley; Christopher W Wheldon; Chris J Hoefer; Morgan Wright; Ryan Haggart; Darry Mitteldorf; Gudrun Kilian; Badrinath R Konety; Michael W Ross; William West Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Samuel U Takvorian; Erin Balogh; Sharyl Nass; Virginia L Valentin; Lori Hoffman-Hogg; Randall A Oyer; Robert W Carlson; Neal J Meropol; Lisa Kennedy Sheldon; Lawrence N Shulman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Maria Manuel Teixeira; Fábio Cardoso Borges; Paula Sousa Ferreira; João Rocha; Bruno Sepodes; Carla Torre Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-08-12