S Ahmed1, L Barbera2, S J Bartlett1, D G Bebb2, M Brundage3, S Bryan4, W Y Cheung2, N Coburn3, T Crump2, L Cuthbertson4, D Howell3, A F Klassen3, S Leduc3, M Li3, N E Mayo1, G McKinnon2, R Olson4, J Pink2, J W Robinson2, M J Santana2, R Sawatzky4, R S Moxam3, S Sinclair2, F Servidio-Italiano3, W Temple2. 1. Quebec: Department of Medicine School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal (Ahmed, Mayo); Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, and McGill University Health Systems, Montreal (Bartlett). 2. Alberta: Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary (Barbera, Bebb, Cheung); University of Calgary, Calgary (Crump, Temple); Departments of Surgery and Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary (McKinnon); Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary (Pink, Santana); University of Calgary and Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary (Robinson); Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary (Sinclair). 3. Ontario: Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Kingston (Brundage); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto (Coburn); Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto (Howell); McMaster University, Hamilton (Klassen); CancerInsight, Oakville (Leduc); Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto (Li); Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto (Moxam); Colorectal Cancer Resource and Action Network, Oakville (Servidio-Italiano). 4. British Columbia: School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Bryan); Office of Patient-Centred Measurement, British Columbia Ministry of Health, Vancouver (Cuthbertson); Radiation Oncology and Developmental Radiotherapeutics, University of British Columbia, Prince George (Olson); School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley (Sawatzky).
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (pros) are essential to capture the patient's perspective and to influence care. Although pros and pro measures are known to have many important benefits, they are not consistently being used and there is there no Canadian pros oversight. The Position Statement presented here is the first step toward supporting the implementation of pros in the Canadian health care setting. Methods: The Canadian pros National Steering Committee drafted position statements, which were submitted for stakeholder feedback before, during, and after the first National Canadian Patient Reported Outcomes (canpros) scientific conference, 14-15 November 2019 in Calgary, Alberta. In addition to the stakeholder feedback cycle, a patient advocate group submitted a section to capture the patient voice. Results: The canpros Position Statement is an outcome of the 2019 canpros scientific conference, with an oncology focus. The Position Statement is categorized into 6 sections covering 4 theme areas: Patient and Families, Health Policy, Clinical Implementation, and Research. The patient voice perfectly mirrors the recommendations that the experts reached by consensus and provides an overriding impetus for the use of pros in health care. Conclusions: Although our vision of pros transforming the health care system to be more patient-centred is still aspirational, the Position Statement presented here takes a first step toward providing recommendations in key areas to align Canadian efforts. The Position Statement is directed toward a health policy audience; future iterations will target other audiences, including researchers, clinicians, and patients. Our intent is that future versions will broaden the focus to include chronic diseases beyond cancer. 2020 Multimed Inc.
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (pros) are essential to capture the patient's perspective and to influence care. Although pros and pro measures are known to have many important benefits, they are not consistently being used and there is there no Canadian pros oversight. The Position Statement presented here is the first step toward supporting the implementation of pros in the Canadian health care setting. Methods: The Canadian pros National Steering Committee drafted position statements, which were submitted for stakeholder feedback before, during, and after the first National Canadian Patient Reported Outcomes (canpros) scientific conference, 14-15 November 2019 in Calgary, Alberta. In addition to the stakeholder feedback cycle, a patient advocate group submitted a section to capture the patient voice. Results: The canpros Position Statement is an outcome of the 2019 canpros scientific conference, with an oncology focus. The Position Statement is categorized into 6 sections covering 4 theme areas: Patient and Families, Health Policy, Clinical Implementation, and Research. The patient voice perfectly mirrors the recommendations that the experts reached by consensus and provides an overriding impetus for the use of pros in health care. Conclusions: Although our vision of pros transforming the health care system to be more patient-centred is still aspirational, the Position Statement presented here takes a first step toward providing recommendations in key areas to align Canadian efforts. The Position Statement is directed toward a health policy audience; future iterations will target other audiences, including researchers, clinicians, and patients. Our intent is that future versions will broaden the focus to include chronic diseases beyond cancer. 2020 Multimed Inc.
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Nan E Rothrock; Esi M DeWitt; Brennan Spiegel; Carole A Tucker; Heidi M Crane; Christopher B Forrest; Donald L Patrick; Rob Fredericksen; Lisa M Shulman; David Cella; Paul K Crane Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Maria-Jose Santana; David Feeny; Jeffrey A Johnson; Finlay A McAlister; Daniel Kim; Justin Weinkauf; Dale C Lien Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Olga C Damman; Anant Jani; Brigit A de Jong; Annemarie Becker; Margot J Metz; Martine C de Bruijne; Danielle R Timmermans; Martina C Cornel; Dirk T Ubbink; Marije van der Steen; Muir Gray; Carla van El Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2019-12-15 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Augusta Silveira; Teresa Sequeira; Joaquim Gonçalves; Pedro Lopes Ferreira Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Yin Ting Cheung; Alexandre Chan; Andreas Charalambous; H S Darling; Lawson Eng; Lisa Grech; Corina J G van den Hurk; Deborah Kirk; Sandra A Mitchell; Dagmara Poprawski; Elke Rammant; Imogen Ramsey; Margaret I Fitch; Raymond J Chan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: C Mazariego; M Jefford; R J Chan; N Roberts; L Millar; A Anazodo; S Hayes; B Brown; C Saunders; K Webber; J Vardy; A Girgis; B Koczwara Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 4.442