Integrating Patient-Reported Outcome Measures into Routine Cancer Care: Cancer Patients’ and Clinicians’ Perceptions of Acceptability and Value

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Integrating Patient-Reported Outcome Measures into Routine Cancer Care: Cancer Patients’ and Clinicians’ Perceptions of Acceptability and Value

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Integrating Patient-Reported Outcome Measures into Routine Cancer Care: Cancer Patients’ and Clinicians’ Perceptions of Acceptability and Value
Author: Stover, Angela; Irwin, Debra E.; Chen, Ronald C.; Chera, Bhishamjit S.; Mayer, Deborah K.; Muss, Hyman B.; Rosenstein, Donald L.; Shea, Thomas C.; Wood, William A.; Lyons, Jessica C.; Reeve, Bryce B.

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Stover, A., D. E. Irwin, R. C. Chen, B. S. Chera, D. K. Mayer, H. B. Muss, D. L. Rosenstein, et al. 2015. “Integrating Patient-Reported Outcome Measures into Routine Cancer Care: Cancer Patients’ and Clinicians’ Perceptions of Acceptability and Value.” eGEMs 3 (1): 1169. doi:10.13063/2327-9214.1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1169.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Introduction: Despite growing interest in integrating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of symptoms and functional status into routine cancer care, little attention has been paid to patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of acceptability and value. Methods: A two-phase qualitative study was conducted to develop a web-based PRO screening system with 21 items assessing symptoms (e.g., nausea) and functional status. Phase 1 involved cognitive interviews with 35 cancer outpatients (n=9 breast chemotherapy, radiation for prostate (n=8) or head and neck cancer (n=10), and n=8 bone marrow transplant [BMT]). In Phase 2, we evaluated the acceptability and perceived value of reviewing a PRO measure during real-time clinical encounters with 39 additional outpatients (n=10 breast, n=9 head and neck, n=10 prostate, n=10 BMT) and 12 clinicians (n=3 breast, n=2 head and neck, n=4 prostate, n=3 BMT). At least 20% of patients were ≥60 years, African American, or ≤ high school. Results: Patients felt that their PRO summary of symptoms and functional status was helpful in discussing health issues with clinicians (92%), wanted to review their results with clinicians during future visits (82%), and would recommend it to other patients (87%). Clinicians found the PRO summary to be easy to interpret (83%), most helpful for documenting the Review of Symptoms (92%), and would recommend it to future patients (92%). Over 90% of clinicians reported that consultation time did not increase. Conclusion: Both cancer patients and clinicians reported that discussing a PRO summary of symptoms and functional status during an outpatient visit was useful, acceptable, and feasible.
Published Version: doi:10.13063/2327-9214.1169
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4636110/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:23845134
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters