Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication
- 1.6k Downloads
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an increasingly popular tool to optimize care and bridge the gap between patient experience and clinician understanding. The aim of this review was to identify mechanisms through which PROs facilitate patient-clinician communication in the adult oncology population.
We conducted a systematic review of the published literature using the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cab Direct, and CDSR. Studies included in this review reported on the outcomes of PRO use, used PROs as an intervention and not as a study outcome measurement tool, included cancer patients or survivors as study participants, and analyzed patient-clinician communication.
We identified 610 unique records, of which 43 publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Synthesis of the reviewed studies provided evidence of the usefulness of PROs in facilitating patient-clinician communication on a variety of topics. We identified mechanisms though which PROs influenced patient-clinician communication to include increasing symptom awareness, prompting discussion, streamlining consultations, and facilitating inter-professional communication. Barriers to PRO use in communication improvement include technical problems impeding its administration and completion, compliance issues due to lack of incentive or forgetfulness, and use of PROs that do not appropriately assess issues relevant to the patient. Facilitators include increased education on PRO use, using PRO tools that patients find more acceptable, and providing patient data summaries in an easily accessible format for clinicians.
Our review suggests that PROs facilitate patient-clinician communication through various mechanisms that could perhaps contribute to improvements in symptom management and survival. The impact of PROs on clinical outcomes, however, remains poorly studied.
KeywordsOncology Patient-reported outcomes Patient-reported outcome measures Barriers to use Physician-patient communication Systematic review
We thank Katherine Miller (UBC), for her contributions to creating and editing the search strategy used in this review.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Patient reported outcomes (PROs) in performance measurement (2012) Washington DC: National Quality Forum. Available online at https://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2012/12/Patient-Reported_Outcomes_in_Performance_Measurement.aspx
- 3.Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ (2013) A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res 13:211. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-211 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 4.Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, Harrow A, Di Domenico D, Croy S et al (2014) 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 trials. J Clin Oncol 32:1480–1501. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 6.Wolfe J, Orellana L, Cook EF, Ullrich C, Kang T, Geyer JR et al (2014) Improving the care of children with advanced cancer by using an electronic patient-reported feedback intervention: results from the PediQUEST randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 32:1119–1126. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.51.5981 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Howell D, Molloy S, Wilkinson K, Green E, Orchard K, Wang K et al (2015) Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol 26:1846–1858. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv181 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Snyder CF, Jensen RE, Geller G, Carducci MA, Wu AW (2010) Relevant content for a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire for use in oncology clinical practice: putting doctors and patients on the same page. Qual Life Res 19:1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9655-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.McCormack B, Rycroft-Malone J, Decorby K, Hutchinson AM, Bucknall T, Kent B et al (2013) A realist review of interventions and strategies to promote evidence-informed healthcare: a focus on change agency. Implement Sci 8:107. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-107 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Pearson M, Brand SL, Quinn C, Shaw J, Maguire M, Michie S et al (2015) Using realist review to inform intervention development: methodological illustration and conceptual platform for collaborative care in offender mental health. Implement Sci 10:134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0321-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Greenhalgh J, Pawson R, Wright J, Black N, Valderas JM, Meads D et al (2014) Functionality and feedback: a protocol for a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of PROMs data to improve patient care. BMJ Open 4:e005601. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr05020 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Higgins JPT, Green S (editors) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane collaboration available from www.handbook.cochrane.org
- 23.Berry DL, Blumenstein BA, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Fann JR, Austin-Seymour M et al (2011) Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 29:1029–1035. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.30.3909 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Girgis A, Breen S, Stacey F, Lecathelinais C (2009) Impact of two supportive care interventions on anxiety, depression, quality of life, and unmet needs in patients with nonlocalized breast and colorectal cancers. J Clin Oncol 27:6180–6190. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.22.8718 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Velikova G, Keding A, Harley C, Cocks K, Booth L, Smith AB et al (2010) Patients report improvements in continuity of care when quality of life assessments are used routinely in oncology practice: secondary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 46:2381–2388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Braeken APBM, Kempen GIJM, Eekers D, van Gils FCJM, Houben RMA, Lechner L (2011) The usefulness and feasibility of a screening instrument to identify psychosocial problems in patients receiving curative radiotherapy: a process evaluation. BMC Cancer 11:479. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-11-479 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 41.Kornblith AB, Dowell JM, Herndon JE 2nd, Engelman BJ, Bauer-Wu S, Small EJ et al (2006) Telephone monitoring of distress in patients aged 65 years or older with advanced stage cancer: a cancer and leukemia group B study. Cancer 107:2706–2714. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22296 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Maguire R, Ream E, Richardson A, Connaghan J, Johnston B, Kotronoulas G et al (2015) Development of a novel remote patient monitoring system: the advanced symptom management system for radiotherapy to improve the symptom experience of patients with lung cancer receiving radiotherapy. Cancer Nurs 38:E37–E47. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000150 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 51.Patel RA, Klasnja P, Hartzler A, Unruh KT, Pratt W (2012) Probing the benefits of real-time tracking during cancer care. AMIA Ann Symp Proc 2012:1340Google Scholar
- 52.Mooney KH, Beck SL, Friedman RH, Farzanfar R, Wong B (2014) Automated monitoring of symptoms during ambulatory chemotherapy and oncology providers’ use of the information: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Support Care Cancer 22:2343–2350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2216-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 53.Taenzer P, Bultz BD, Carlson LE, Speca M, DeGagne T, Olson K et al (2000) Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients. Psychooncology 9:203–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1611(200005/06)9:3<203::AID-PON453>3.0.CO;2-Y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 55.Berry DL, Hong F, Halpenny B, Partridge A, Fox E, Fann JR et al (2014) The electronic self report assessment and intervention for cancer: promoting patient verbal reporting of symptom and quality of life issues in a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer 14:513. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-513 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 60.Rosenbloom SK, Victorson DE, Hahn EA, Peterman AH, Cella D (2007) Assessment is not enough: a randomized controlled trial of the effects of HRQL assessment on quality of life and satisfaction in oncology clinical practice. Psychooncology 16:1069–1079. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1184 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar