Exploring the integration of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: A cross-sectional survey of EORTC healthcare professionals

被引:0
|
作者
Lehmann, Jens [1 ]
Dragan, Tatiana [2 ]
Rammant, Elke [3 ]
de Ligt, Kelly M. [4 ]
Lai-Kwon, Julia [5 ,6 ]
Lidington, Emma [7 ]
Bultijnck, Renee [3 ]
Dejaco, Daniel [8 ]
Taylor, Katherine J. [9 ]
Colombo, Elena [12 ]
Madariaga, Ainhoa [13 ]
Nicolay, Jan P. [15 ]
Zerdes, Ioannis [16 ,17 ,18 ]
Bosisio, Francesca [19 ,20 ]
Gaspert, Tihana [10 ,11 ]
Brandao, Mariana [14 ]
Correia, Dora [21 ,22 ]
Marquina, Gloria [25 ]
Pellerino, Alessia [23 ,24 ]
Fontes-Sousa, Mario [26 ,27 ]
Grisay, Guillaume [28 ]
Siebenhuener, Alexander [30 ]
Silva, Tiago [29 ]
Cammarota, Antonella [31 ,32 ]
Szturz, Petr [33 ,34 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Innsbruck, Univ Hosp Psychiat 2, Innsbruck, Austria
[2] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Hop Univ Bruxelles HUB, Head & Neck Unit, Inst Jules Bordet,Dept Radiat Oncol, Brussels, Belgium
[3] Univ Ghent, Dept Human Struct & Repair, Ghent, Belgium
[4] Netherlands Canc Inst Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[5] Peter MacCallum Canc Ctr, Dept Hlth Serv Res, Melbourne, Australia
[6] Peter MacCallum Canc Ctr, Melbourne, Australia
[7] Queen Mary Univ London, Ctr Canc Screening Prevent & Early Diag, London, England
[8] Med Univ Innsbruck, Dept Otorhinolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Innsbruck, Austria
[9] Univ Med Ctr Mainz, Inst Med Biostat Epidemiol & Informat, Mainz, Germany
[10] Univ Maribor, Fac Hlth Sci, Maribor, Slovenia
[11] Univ Hosp Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
[12] Fdn IRCCS Ist Nazl Tumori, Head & Neck Med Oncol Unit, Milan, Italy
[13] 12 Octubre Univ Hosp, Madrid, Spain
[14] Univ Libre Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
[15] Univ Med Ctr Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
[16] Karolinska Univ Hosp, Theme Canc, Stockholm, Sweden
[17] Karolinska Inst, Comprehens Canc Ctr, Stockholm, Sweden
[18] Karolinska Inst, Dept Oncol Pathol, Stockholm, Sweden
[19] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Translat Cell & Tissue Res, Leuven, Belgium
[20] UZ Leuven, Dept Pathol, Leuven, Belgium
[21] Cantonal Hosp Aarau, Dept Radiat Oncol, Aarau, Aargau, Switzerland
[22] Univ Bern, Bern Univ Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
[23] Univ & City Hlth & Sci Hosp, Dept Neurosci Rita Levi Montalcini, Turin, Italy
[24] City Hlth & Sci Hosp, Turin, Italy
[25] UCM, Hosp Clin San Carlos, Sch Med, Dept Med Oncol,IdissC, Madrid, Spain
[26] Hosp CUF Tejo, Med Oncol Dept, Lisbon, Portugal
[27] Hosp S Francisco Xavier, Dept Pediat Surg, P-1495 Lisbon, Portugal
[28] CHU Helora, La Louviere, Belgium
[29] Inst Portugues Oncol Francisco Gentil, Lisbon, Portugal
[30] Univ Hosp Zurich USZ, Dept Hematol Oncol, Zurich, Switzerland
[31] Humanitas Univ, Dept Biomed Sci, Milan, Italy
[32] Sarah Cannon Res Inst UK, Drug Dev Unit, London, England
[33] Univ Lausanne, Dept Oncol, Lausanne, Switzerland
[34] Lausanne Univ Hosp, Lausanne, Switzerland
关键词
Patient reported outcome measures; Cancer; Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO); Electronic data collection; Supportive care; Clinical practice;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115333
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Using patient reported-outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care has significant potential to benefit patients with cancer, but it is unclear how widely they are used in practice. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey (November 2023-April 2024) among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests assessed PROM use patterns, regional differences, and barriers. Binary regression models compared barriers between PROM users and non-users. Results: Of the 3733 EORTC members contacted, 784 responded (21 % response rate), predominantly physicians. Among the 784 HCPs (50 % women), 338 (43 %) did not use PROMs, 214 (27 %) were occasional users, and 232 (30 %) used PROMs regularly. PROM use was significantly higher in Western Europe than in Central/Eastern Europe. PROMs were primarily used for monitoring health status and enhancing communication. PROM use was highest among HCPs treating bone, soft tissue, genito-urinary, and gynecological cancers, and lowest in lung cancer. Key barriers to PROM use included lack of time (reported by 70 % of respondents) and insufficient support on how to use PROMs (73 %). Compared to non-users, PROM users more frequently identified patient- level barriers, such as accessibility concerns, as relevant (Odds Ratio 3.5, 95 % Confidence Interval 2.4-5.3). Conclusions: PROM use varies by cancer type, setting, and region. Addressing time constraints, providing support, and overcoming patient barriers are key to broader integration. Ensuring equitable access to PROM tools across regions and settings is vital for promoting equity in cancer care.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Surgeon Perceptions of the Integration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Practice
    Driscoll, Brittni
    Leonard, Laura D.
    Kovar, Alexandra
    Billings, Joshua
    Tevis, Sarah E.
    Kim, Simon P.
    Cumbler, Ethan
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2022, 280 : 486 - 494
  • [2] Use of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in renal units in Australia and New Zealand: A cross-sectional survey study
    Morton, Rachael L.
    Lioufas, Nicole
    Dansie, Kathryn
    Palmer, Suetonia C.
    Jose, Matthew D.
    Raj, Rajesh
    Salmon, Andrew
    Sypek, Matthew
    Tong, Allison
    Ludlow, Marie
    Boudville, Neil
    McDonald, Stephen
    NEPHROLOGY, 2020, 25 (01) : 14 - 21
  • [3] Impact of Natalizumab on Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Clinical Practice Setting A Cross-Sectional Survey
    Kamat, Siddhesh A.
    Rajagopalan, Krithika
    Stephenson, Judith J.
    Agarwal, Sonalee
    PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2009, 2 (02): : 105 - 112
  • [4] Impact of Natalizumab on Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Clinical Practice SettingA Cross-Sectional Survey
    Siddhesh A. Kamat
    Krithika Rajagopalan
    Judith J. Stephenson
    Sonalee Agarwal
    The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2009, 2 : 105 - 112
  • [5] Patient-reported areas for quality improvement in general practice: a cross-sectional survey
    Waller, Amy
    Carey, Mariko
    Mazza, Danielle
    Yoong, Serene
    Grady, Alice
    Sanson-Fisher, Rob
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2015, 65 (634): : E312 - E318
  • [6] Which Factors Influence the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Dutch Physiotherapy Practice? A Cross-Sectional Study
    Meerhoff, Guus A.
    van Dulmen, Simone A.
    Cruijsberg, Juliette K.
    Nijhuis-van der Sanden, Maria W. G.
    Van der Wees, Philip J.
    PHYSIOTHERAPY CANADA, 2020, 72 (01) : 63 - 70
  • [7] Management of patient-reported outcome alerts: a cross sectional survey
    Kyte, Derek G.
    Ives, Jonathan
    Draper, Heather
    Calvert, Melanie J.
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2015, 24 : 25 - 26
  • [8] PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN CORE OUTCOME SETS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY BASED ON THE COMET DATABASE
    Ciani, O.
    Salcher-Konrad, M.
    Meregaglia, M.
    Smith, K.
    Gorst, S.
    Fattore, G.
    Williamson, P.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2020, 23 : S319 - S319
  • [9] Management of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Alerts in Clinical Trials: A Cross Sectional Survey
    Kyte, Derek
    Ives, Jonathan
    Draper, Heather
    Calvert, Melanie
    PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (01):
  • [10] Choosing and Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice
    Kroenke, Kurt
    Miksch, Timothy A.
    Spaulding, Aaron C.
    Mazza, Gina L.
    DeStephano, Christopher C.
    Niazi, Shehzad K.
    Illies, Allie J. Canoy
    Bydon, Mohamad
    Novotny, Paull
    Goyal, Anshit
    Lee, Minji K.
    ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2022, 103 (05): : S108 - S117