Laurentine S E van Egdom1, Arvind Oemrawsingh2, Lisanne M Verweij2, Hester F Lingsma2, Linetta B Koppert1, Cornelis Verhoef1, Niek S Klazinga3, Jan A Hazelzet4. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.a.hazelzet@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to improve care delivery and are becoming part of routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to give an overview of PROM administration methods and their facilitators and barriers in breast cancer clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Web of Science for potentially relevant articles from study inception to November 2017. Reference lists of screened reviews were also checked. After inclusion of relevant articles, data were extracted and appraised by 2 investigators. RESULTS: A total of 2311 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. Method and frequency of PROM collection varied between studies. The majority of studies described a promising effect of PROM collection on patients (adherence, symptom distress, quality of life, acceptability, and satisfaction), providers (willingness to comply, clinical decision making, symptom management), and care process or system outcomes (referrals, patient-provider communication, hospital visits). A limited number of facilitators and barriers were identified, primarily of a technical and behavioral nature. CONCLUSION: Although interpreting the impact of PROM collection in breast cancer care is challenging owing to considerations of synergistic (multicomponent) interventions and generalizability issues, this review found that systematic PROM collection has a promising impact on patients, providers, and care processes/ systems. Further standardization and reporting on method and frequency of PROM collection might help increase the effectiveness of PROM interventions and is warranted to enhance their overall impact.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to improve care delivery and are becoming part of routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to give an overview of PROM administration methods and their facilitators and barriers in breast cancer clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Web of Science for potentially relevant articles from study inception to November 2017. Reference lists of screened reviews were also checked. After inclusion of relevant articles, data were extracted and appraised by 2 investigators. RESULTS: A total of 2311 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. Method and frequency of PROM collection varied between studies. The majority of studies described a promising effect of PROM collection on patients (adherence, symptom distress, quality of life, acceptability, and satisfaction), providers (willingness to comply, clinical decision making, symptom management), and care process or system outcomes (referrals, patient-provider communication, hospital visits). A limited number of facilitators and barriers were identified, primarily of a technical and behavioral nature. CONCLUSION: Although interpreting the impact of PROM collection in breast cancer care is challenging owing to considerations of synergistic (multicomponent) interventions and generalizability issues, this review found that systematic PROM collection has a promising impact on patients, providers, and care processes/ systems. Further standardization and reporting on method and frequency of PROM collection might help increase the effectiveness of PROM interventions and is warranted to enhance their overall impact.
Authors: Olga Husson; Bryce B Reeve; Anne-Sophie Darlington; Christabel K Cheung; Samantha Sodergren; Winette T A van der Graaf; John M Salsman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Yiman Wang; Jaapjan D Snoep; Marc H Hemmelder; Koen E A van der Bogt; Willem Jan W Bos; Paul J M van der Boog; Friedo W Dekker; Aiko P J de Vries; Yvette Meuleman Journal: Clin Kidney J 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: Jennifer E Flythe; Matthew J Tugman; Julia H Narendra; Adeline Dorough; Johnathan Hilbert; Magdalene M Assimon; Darren A DeWalt Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: Marloes E Clarijs; Jacob Thurell; Friedrich Kühn; Carin A Uyl-de Groot; Elham Hedayati; Maria M Karsten; Agnes Jager; Linetta B Koppert Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: R J Fredericksen; B N Harding; S A Ruderman; J McReynolds; G Barnes; W B Lober; E Fitzsimmons; R M Nance; B M Whitney; J A C Delaney; W C Mathews; J Willig; P K Crane; H M Crane Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2020-11-15