Literature DB >> 33058000

Utility of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to measure primary health outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review.

Thi Xuan Mai Tran1, Jungeun Park2, Joonki Lee3, Yuh-Seog Jung4,5, Yoonjung Chang1,6, Hyunsoon Cho7,8.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on how the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measure system is used to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer patients.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. Articles were identified through searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and additional manual review of the publications listed on the PROMIS website. We included studies measuring outcomes, including physical function, fatigue, pain, anxiety, and depression in cancer patients. Eligible articles included interventional and observational studies published in English between 2009 and 2019.
RESULTS: A total of 1789 records were identified and screened by three reviewers, 118 articles were reviewed in full text, and 42 articles met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies used the PROMIS measure system to prospectively assess longitudinal changes in PROs; the number of measurements ranges from 2 to 4 with the time points of follow-up set at 3, 6, and 12 months after the baseline assessment. Depression and fatigue were the most frequently measured outcomes. Fixed-length short forms with four items were the most common measure types. A transition toward utilizing a web- or smartphone-based electronic tool was observed to limit the burden of the conventional paper-based survey to collect and store PROs.
CONCLUSION: The PROMIS measure system is increasingly popular to measure PROs in cancer patients with acceptance of its various short forms and electronic-based systems to administer data electronically. Findings from this review highlight various aspects of PROMIS and may help health professionals in their choice of PRO tools for optimizing care and support for cancer patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; PROMIS; Patient-reported outcomes; Systematic review

Year:  2020        PMID: 33058000     DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05801-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  59 in total

1.  Electronic patient-reported data capture as a foundation of rapid learning cancer care.

Authors:  Amy P Abernethy; Asif Ahmad; S Yousuf Zafar; Jane L Wheeler; Jennifer Barsky Reese; H Kim Lyerly
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice.

Authors:  Claire F Snyder; Neil K Aaronson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-08-01       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice.

Authors:  Antonia V Bennett; Roxanne E Jensen; Ethan Basch
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  Introduction: PROMIS a first look across diseases.

Authors:  James P Witter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2016-02-28       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008.

Authors:  David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting.

Authors:  Ethan Basch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based study.

Authors:  Ethan Basch; Alexia Iasonos; Tiffani McDonough; Allison Barz; Ann Culkin; Mark G Kris; Howard I Scher; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  How accurate is clinician reporting of chemotherapy adverse effects? A comparison with patient-reported symptoms from the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C30.

Authors:  Erik K Fromme; Kristine M Eilers; Motomi Mori; Yi-Ching Hsieh; Tomasz M Beer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Implementing touch-screen technology to enhance recognition of distress.

Authors:  K Clark; W A Bardwell; T Arsenault; R DeTeresa; M Loscalzo
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.894

10.  Online screening for distress, the 6th vital sign, in newly diagnosed oncology outpatients: randomised controlled trial of computerised vs personalised triage.

Authors:  L E Carlson; A Waller; S L Groff; L Zhong; B D Bultz
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring.

Authors:  Corina J G van den Hurk; Floortje Mols; Manuela Eicher; Raymond J Chan; Annemarie Becker; Gijs Geleijnse; Iris Walraven; Annemarie Coolbrandt; Maryam Lustberg; Galina Velikova; Andreas Charalambous; Bogda Koczwara; Doris Howell; Ethan M Basch; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 3.109

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.