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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |