Patient-reported outcome measures in oncology: a qualitative study of the healthcare professional’s perspective
Open Access
- 2 March 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Supportive Care in Cancer
- Vol. 29 (9), 5253-5261
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06052-9
Abstract
Background: In the last decades, the number of cancer survivors has increased significantly due to improved treatment and better detection of recurrence. This increased survival redirects the scope from survival towards optimising functional outcomes and improving health-related quality of life (HRQol). Functional and HRQoL outcomes can be assessed with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the use of PROMs in daily oncological care is not common. This qualitative study investigates the barriers and facilitators of PROM use in an oncological setting, from the perspective of the healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted among Dutch oncological HCPs. Barriers and facilitators of PROM implementation were identified on various levels of the healthcare system (i.e. level of the patient, individual professional, medical team, and healthcare organisation). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were manually analysed by two independent reviewers using a thematic approach. Identified barriers and facilitators were categorised into Grol and Wensing’s framework for changing healthcare practice. Results: Nineteen oncological HCPs working in academic and non-academic hospitals were interviewed. Barriers for PROM implementation were lack of good IT support, lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs, lack of time to complete and interpret PROMs, and a high administrative burden. PROM implementation can be facilitated by providing clear guidance regarding PROM interpretation, evidence that PROMs can save time, and stimulating multidisciplinary teamwork. Conclusion: From a HCP point of view, adequately functioning IT technology, sufficient knowledge on PROMs, and dedicated time during the consultation are essential for successful implementation of PROMs in oncological care. Additional local context-specific factors need to be thoroughly addressed.Keywords
Funding Information
- Stichting Kwaliteit Medisch Specialisten
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- What Is the Value of the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Toward Improvement of Patient Outcomes, Processes of Care, and Health Service Outcomes in Cancer Care? A Systematic Review of Controlled TrialsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2014
- Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5—a population-based studyThe Lancet Oncology, 2014
- Low Anterior Resection Syndrome ScoreAnnals of Surgery, 2012
- Patient-reported outcome measures: an overviewBritish Journal of Community Nursing, 2011
- Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practiceThe Lancet, 2009
- Screening and referral for psychosocial distress in oncologic practiceCancer, 2008
- Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groupsInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2007
- From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' careThe Lancet, 2003
- Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical settingBMJ, 2001
- The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A Quality-of-Life Instrument for Use in International Clinical Trials in OncologyJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1993