Cargando…

Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature

BACKGROUND: To explore the existing evidence of the real-world implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical practice and address two aims: (1) summarize available evidence of PRO use in clinical practice using a framework based on the International Society for Quality of L...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anatchkova, Milena, Donelson, Sarah M., Skalicky, Anne M., McHorney, Colleen A., Jagun, Dayo, Whiteley, Jennifer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6306371/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30588562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0091-0
_version_ 1783382766528757760
author Anatchkova, Milena
Donelson, Sarah M.
Skalicky, Anne M.
McHorney, Colleen A.
Jagun, Dayo
Whiteley, Jennifer
author_facet Anatchkova, Milena
Donelson, Sarah M.
Skalicky, Anne M.
McHorney, Colleen A.
Jagun, Dayo
Whiteley, Jennifer
author_sort Anatchkova, Milena
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To explore the existing evidence of the real-world implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical practice and address two aims: (1) summarize available evidence of PRO use in clinical practice using a framework based on the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) PRO Implementation Guide; and (2) describe reports of real-world, standardized PRO administration in oncology conducted outside of scope of a research study. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was developed to guide the systematic literature review (SLR) that was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase databases. A two step search strategy was implemented including two searches based on previously completed reviews. Studies published from 2006 to 2017 were synthesized using a framework based on the ISOQOL PRO Implementation Guide. RESULTS: After screening 4427 abstracts, 36 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most elements of the ISOQOL PRO Implementation Guide were followed. Two notable exceptions were found: 1) providing PRO score interpretation guidelines (39% of studies); and 2) providing patient-management guidance for addressing issues identified by PROs (25% of studies). Of the 22 studies with an intervention component, 19 (86%) reported intervention effects on study outcomes. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was the most commonly used PRO (n = 10, 28%); use of 38 other PRO measures was also reported. Only three studies (8%) reported real-world PRO implementation. CONCLUSION: Reports of real-world PRO implementation are limited. Reports from studies conducted in clinical settings suggest gaps in information on PRO score interpretation and the use of PRO results to inform patient management. Before the promise of practice-based PRO assessment in oncology can be truly realized, investigators need to advance the state-of-the-art of real-time PRO score interpretation as well as developing guidance on how to use PRO insights to drive clinically-meaningful patient-management strategies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6306371
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63063712019-01-04 Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature Anatchkova, Milena Donelson, Sarah M. Skalicky, Anne M. McHorney, Colleen A. Jagun, Dayo Whiteley, Jennifer J Patient Rep Outcomes Review BACKGROUND: To explore the existing evidence of the real-world implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical practice and address two aims: (1) summarize available evidence of PRO use in clinical practice using a framework based on the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) PRO Implementation Guide; and (2) describe reports of real-world, standardized PRO administration in oncology conducted outside of scope of a research study. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was developed to guide the systematic literature review (SLR) that was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase databases. A two step search strategy was implemented including two searches based on previously completed reviews. Studies published from 2006 to 2017 were synthesized using a framework based on the ISOQOL PRO Implementation Guide. RESULTS: After screening 4427 abstracts, 36 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most elements of the ISOQOL PRO Implementation Guide were followed. Two notable exceptions were found: 1) providing PRO score interpretation guidelines (39% of studies); and 2) providing patient-management guidance for addressing issues identified by PROs (25% of studies). Of the 22 studies with an intervention component, 19 (86%) reported intervention effects on study outcomes. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was the most commonly used PRO (n = 10, 28%); use of 38 other PRO measures was also reported. Only three studies (8%) reported real-world PRO implementation. CONCLUSION: Reports of real-world PRO implementation are limited. Reports from studies conducted in clinical settings suggest gaps in information on PRO score interpretation and the use of PRO results to inform patient management. Before the promise of practice-based PRO assessment in oncology can be truly realized, investigators need to advance the state-of-the-art of real-time PRO score interpretation as well as developing guidance on how to use PRO insights to drive clinically-meaningful patient-management strategies. Springer International Publishing 2018-12-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6306371/ /pubmed/30588562 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0091-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Review
Anatchkova, Milena
Donelson, Sarah M.
Skalicky, Anne M.
McHorney, Colleen A.
Jagun, Dayo
Whiteley, Jennifer
Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature
title Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature
title_full Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature
title_fullStr Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature
title_full_unstemmed Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature
title_short Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature
title_sort exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6306371/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30588562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0091-0
work_keys_str_mv AT anatchkovamilena exploringtheimplementationofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresincancercareneedformorerealworldevidenceresultsinthepeerreviewedliterature
AT donelsonsarahm exploringtheimplementationofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresincancercareneedformorerealworldevidenceresultsinthepeerreviewedliterature
AT skalickyannem exploringtheimplementationofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresincancercareneedformorerealworldevidenceresultsinthepeerreviewedliterature
AT mchorneycolleena exploringtheimplementationofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresincancercareneedformorerealworldevidenceresultsinthepeerreviewedliterature
AT jagundayo exploringtheimplementationofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresincancercareneedformorerealworldevidenceresultsinthepeerreviewedliterature
AT whiteleyjennifer exploringtheimplementationofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresincancercareneedformorerealworldevidenceresultsinthepeerreviewedliterature