Cargando…

Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Graupner, Caitlin, Kimman, Merel L., Mul, Suzanne, Slok, Annerika H. M., Claessens, Danny, Kleijnen, Jos, Dirksen, Carmen D., Breukink, Stéphanie O.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7767901/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32875373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05695-4
_version_ 1783629064133672960
author Graupner, Caitlin
Kimman, Merel L.
Mul, Suzanne
Slok, Annerika H. M.
Claessens, Danny
Kleijnen, Jos
Dirksen, Carmen D.
Breukink, Stéphanie O.
author_facet Graupner, Caitlin
Kimman, Merel L.
Mul, Suzanne
Slok, Annerika H. M.
Claessens, Danny
Kleijnen, Jos
Dirksen, Carmen D.
Breukink, Stéphanie O.
author_sort Graupner, Caitlin
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7767901
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77679012020-12-29 Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review Graupner, Caitlin Kimman, Merel L. Mul, Suzanne Slok, Annerika H. M. Claessens, Danny Kleijnen, Jos Dirksen, Carmen D. Breukink, Stéphanie O. Support Care Cancer Review Article 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. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-09-02 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7767901/ /pubmed/32875373 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05695-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Review Article
Graupner, Caitlin
Kimman, Merel L.
Mul, Suzanne
Slok, Annerika H. M.
Claessens, Danny
Kleijnen, Jos
Dirksen, Carmen D.
Breukink, Stéphanie O.
Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review
title Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review
title_full Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review
title_fullStr Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review
title_short Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review
title_sort patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (proms) in cancer care: a systematic review
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7767901/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32875373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05695-4
work_keys_str_mv AT graupnercaitlin patientoutcomespatientexperiencesandprocessindicatorsassociatedwiththeroutineuseofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsincancercareasystematicreview
AT kimmanmerell patientoutcomespatientexperiencesandprocessindicatorsassociatedwiththeroutineuseofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsincancercareasystematicreview
AT mulsuzanne patientoutcomespatientexperiencesandprocessindicatorsassociatedwiththeroutineuseofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsincancercareasystematicreview
AT slokannerikahm patientoutcomespatientexperiencesandprocessindicatorsassociatedwiththeroutineuseofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsincancercareasystematicreview
AT claessensdanny patientoutcomespatientexperiencesandprocessindicatorsassociatedwiththeroutineuseofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsincancercareasystematicreview
AT kleijnenjos patientoutcomespatientexperiencesandprocessindicatorsassociatedwiththeroutineuseofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsincancercareasystematicreview
AT dirksencarmend patientoutcomespatientexperiencesandprocessindicatorsassociatedwiththeroutineuseofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsincancercareasystematicreview
AT breukinkstephanieo patientoutcomespatientexperiencesandprocessindicatorsassociatedwiththeroutineuseofpatientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsincancercareasystematicreview