Nora Tabea Sibert1, Christoph Kowalski2, Holger Pfaff3, Simone Wesselmann2, Clara Breidenbach2. 1. German Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany. sibert@krebsgesellschaft.de. 2. German Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany. 3. University of Cologne, Faculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, Eupener Str. 129, 50933, Köln, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used in cancer care to monitor patients' disease-related symptoms and functional status. However, successful implementation of such instruments is only possible if clinical staff are convinced of the clinical benefits. It is therefore crucial to investigate the attitudes of clinical staff to PROs in routine cancer care. METHODS: Semi-structured, guideline-based interviews were held with 12 clinicians working in certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany who are taking part in an observational study on PROs (five surgeons, two oncologists, one psycho-oncologist, two oncological care nurses, one stoma therapist, and one physician assistant) in order to investigate firstly, how clinicians describe PRO instruments ("wording"); and secondly, the clinicians' general attitude toward PROs. A qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz was performed. RESULTS: The wording used to describe PROs was not consistent. Statements on attitudes toward PROs were very heterogeneous and were therefore categorized into "(rather) positive" and "(rather) negative." The principal advantages of PROs mentioned by participants included broader, structured knowledge about patients and treatment, as well as relevance for patients. Subcategories for (rather) negative attitudes included statements expressing doubts about the questionnaires and "no need for PROs." DISCUSSION: The clinicians participating mainly expressed fairly positive attitudes toward PROs. However, they had little knowledge about PROs in general and the interviews therefore mainly reflect their expectations and assumptions about them. These initial impressions may be regarded as providing a basis for future implementation strategies and for training of clinicians on how to use PROs in routine cancer care.
INTRODUCTION:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used in cancer care to monitor patients' disease-related symptoms and functional status. However, successful implementation of such instruments is only possible if clinical staff are convinced of the clinical benefits. It is therefore crucial to investigate the attitudes of clinical staff to PROs in routine cancer care. METHODS: Semi-structured, guideline-based interviews were held with 12 clinicians working in certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany who are taking part in an observational study on PROs (five surgeons, two oncologists, one psycho-oncologist, two oncological care nurses, one stoma therapist, and one physician assistant) in order to investigate firstly, how clinicians describe PRO instruments ("wording"); and secondly, the clinicians' general attitude toward PROs. A qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz was performed. RESULTS: The wording used to describe PROs was not consistent. Statements on attitudes toward PROs were very heterogeneous and were therefore categorized into "(rather) positive" and "(rather) negative." The principal advantages of PROs mentioned by participants included broader, structured knowledge about patients and treatment, as well as relevance for patients. Subcategories for (rather) negative attitudes included statements expressing doubts about the questionnaires and "no need for PROs." DISCUSSION: The clinicians participating mainly expressed fairly positive attitudes toward PROs. However, they had little knowledge about PROs in general and the interviews therefore mainly reflect their expectations and assumptions about them. These initial impressions may be regarded as providing a basis for future implementation strategies and for training of clinicians on how to use PROs in routine cancer care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer care; EORTC; Implementation; Patient-reported outcome measures; Patient-reported outcomes; Routine care
Authors: Ethan Basch; Allison M Deal; Amylou C Dueck; Howard I Scher; Mark G Kris; Clifford Hudis; Deborah Schrag Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eivor A Laugsand; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Kristin Bjordal; Frank Skorpen; Stein Kaasa; Pål Klepstad Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: M Klinkhammer-Schalke; M Koller; B Steinger; C Ehret; B Ernst; J C Wyatt; F Hofstädter; W Lorenz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Anja van der Hout; Koen I Neijenhuijs; Femke Jansen; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Neil K Aaronson; Mogens Groenvold; Bernhard Holzner; Caroline B Terwee; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Pim Cuijpers; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Martin P Eccles; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Marie Johnston; Nick Steen; Nigel B Pitts; Ruth Thomas; Elizabeth Glidewell; Graeme Maclennan; Debbie Bonetti; Anne Walker Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2007-08-03 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Philip J van der Wees; Eva W Verkerk; Marjolein E A Verbiest; Marloes Zuidgeest; Carla Bakker; Jozé Braspenning; Dolf de Boer; Caroline B Terwee; Ildikó Vajda; Anna Beurskens; Simone A van Dulmen Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2019-12-30
Authors: Clara Breidenbach; Christoph Kowalski; Simone Wesselmann; Nora Tabea Sibert Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 2.655