Caitlin Graupner1,2, Merel L Kimman3, Suzanne Mul4, Annerika H M Slok5, Danny Claessens5, Jos Kleijnen6,7, Carmen D Dirksen3, Stéphanie O Breukink4,8. 1. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. caitlin.graupner@mumc.nl. 2. School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. caitlin.graupner@mumc.nl. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Center and Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York, UK. 7. Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 8. School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs). METHODS: A systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs. RESULTS: After screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: This review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.
PURPOSE: In current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs). METHODS: A systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs. RESULTS: After screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: This review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.
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: David H Henry; Hema N Viswanathan; Eric P Elkin; Shana Traina; Shawn Wade; David Cella Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-01-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Freya Trautmann; Leopold Hentschel; Beate Hornemann; Anke Rentsch; Michael Baumann; Gerhard Ehninger; Jochen Schmitt; Markus Schuler Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sarah K Rosenbloom; David E Victorson; Elizabeth A Hahn; Amy H Peterman; David Cella Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jessica A Zerillo; Maartje G Schouwenburg; Annelotte C M van Bommel; Caleb Stowell; Jacob Lippa; Donna Bauer; Ann M Berger; Gilles Boland; Josep M Borras; Mary K Buss; Robert Cima; Eric Van Cutsem; Eino B van Duyn; Samuel R G Finlayson; Skye Hung-Chun Cheng; Corinna Langelotz; John Lloyd; Andrew C Lynch; Harvey J Mamon; Pamela K McAllister; Bruce D Minsky; Joanne Ngeow; Muhammad R Abu Hassan; Kim Ryan; Veena Shankaran; Melissa P Upton; John Zalcberg; Cornelis J van de Velde; Rob Tollenaar Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Neha Verma; Amanda L Blackford; Elissa Thorner; Jennifer Lehman; Claire Snyder; Vered Stearns; Karen Lisa Smith Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Augusta Silveira; Teresa Sequeira; Joaquim Gonçalves; Pedro Lopes Ferreira Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Irtiza N Sheikh; Jeffrey Miller; Basirat Shoberu; Clark R Andersen; Jian Wang; Loretta A Williams; Kris M Mahadeo; Rhonda Robert Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2021-12-29