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

Grigorios Kotronoulas, Nora Kearney, Roma Maguire, Alison Harrow, David Di Domenico, Suzanne Croy, Stephen MacGillivray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

195 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The systematic use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been advocated as an effective way to standardize cancer practice. Yet, the question of whether PROMs can lead to actual improvements in the quality of patient care remains under debate. This review examined whether inclusion of PROM in routine clinical practice is associated with improvements in patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes during active anticancer treatment. Methods: A systematic review of five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], PsycINFO, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection [PBSC]) was conducted from database inception to May 2012 to locate randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials of patients receiving active anticancer treatment or supportive care irrespective of type of cancer. Results: Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 26 articles that reported on 24 unique controlled trials. Wide variability in the design and use of interventions delivered, outcomes evaluated, and cancer- and modality-specific context was apparent. Health service outcomes were only scarcely included as end points. Overall, the number of statistically significant findings were limited and PROMs' intervention effect sizes were predominantly small-to-moderate. Conclusion: The routine use of PROMs increases the frequency of discussion of patient outcomes during consultations. In some studies, PROMs are associated with improved symptom control, increased supportive care measures, and patient satisfaction. Additional effort is required to ensure patient adherence, as well as additional support to clinicians who will respond to patient concerns and issues, with clear system guidelines in place to guide their responses. More research is required to support PROM cost-benefit in terms of patient safety, clinician burden, and health services usage.

LanguageEnglish
Pages1480-1501
Number of pages22
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume32
Issue number14
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 May 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health Services
Neoplasms
Databases
Behavioral Sciences
Quality of Health Care
Patient Safety
Patient Compliance
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patient Satisfaction
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Patient Care
Nursing
Referral and Consultation
Randomized Controlled Trials
Guidelines
Psychology
Health
Therapeutics
Research

Keywords

  • treatment outcome
  • neoplasms
  • patient satisfaction

Cite this

@article{de72d0bf55b241b08c6a532cf47c314e,
title = "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",
abstract = "Purpose: The systematic use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been advocated as an effective way to standardize cancer practice. Yet, the question of whether PROMs can lead to actual improvements in the quality of patient care remains under debate. This review examined whether inclusion of PROM in routine clinical practice is associated with improvements in patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes during active anticancer treatment. Methods: A systematic review of five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], PsycINFO, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection [PBSC]) was conducted from database inception to May 2012 to locate randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials of patients receiving active anticancer treatment or supportive care irrespective of type of cancer. Results: Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 26 articles that reported on 24 unique controlled trials. Wide variability in the design and use of interventions delivered, outcomes evaluated, and cancer- and modality-specific context was apparent. Health service outcomes were only scarcely included as end points. Overall, the number of statistically significant findings were limited and PROMs' intervention effect sizes were predominantly small-to-moderate. Conclusion: The routine use of PROMs increases the frequency of discussion of patient outcomes during consultations. In some studies, PROMs are associated with improved symptom control, increased supportive care measures, and patient satisfaction. Additional effort is required to ensure patient adherence, as well as additional support to clinicians who will respond to patient concerns and issues, with clear system guidelines in place to guide their responses. More research is required to support PROM cost-benefit in terms of patient safety, clinician burden, and health services usage.",
keywords = "treatment outcome, neoplasms, patient satisfaction",
author = "Grigorios Kotronoulas and Nora Kearney and Roma Maguire and Alison Harrow and {Di Domenico}, David and Suzanne Croy and Stephen MacGillivray",
year = "2014",
month = "5",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "1480--1501",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
number = "14",

}

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. / Kotronoulas, Grigorios; Kearney, Nora; Maguire, Roma; Harrow, Alison; Di Domenico, David; Croy, Suzanne; MacGillivray, Stephen.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 32, No. 14, 10.05.2014, p. 1480-1501.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - 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?

T2 - Journal of Clinical Oncology

AU - Kotronoulas, Grigorios

AU - Kearney, Nora

AU - Maguire, Roma

AU - Harrow, Alison

AU - Di Domenico, David

AU - Croy, Suzanne

AU - MacGillivray, Stephen

PY - 2014/5/10

Y1 - 2014/5/10

N2 - Purpose: The systematic use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been advocated as an effective way to standardize cancer practice. Yet, the question of whether PROMs can lead to actual improvements in the quality of patient care remains under debate. This review examined whether inclusion of PROM in routine clinical practice is associated with improvements in patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes during active anticancer treatment. Methods: A systematic review of five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], PsycINFO, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection [PBSC]) was conducted from database inception to May 2012 to locate randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials of patients receiving active anticancer treatment or supportive care irrespective of type of cancer. Results: Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 26 articles that reported on 24 unique controlled trials. Wide variability in the design and use of interventions delivered, outcomes evaluated, and cancer- and modality-specific context was apparent. Health service outcomes were only scarcely included as end points. Overall, the number of statistically significant findings were limited and PROMs' intervention effect sizes were predominantly small-to-moderate. Conclusion: The routine use of PROMs increases the frequency of discussion of patient outcomes during consultations. In some studies, PROMs are associated with improved symptom control, increased supportive care measures, and patient satisfaction. Additional effort is required to ensure patient adherence, as well as additional support to clinicians who will respond to patient concerns and issues, with clear system guidelines in place to guide their responses. More research is required to support PROM cost-benefit in terms of patient safety, clinician burden, and health services usage.

AB - Purpose: The systematic use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been advocated as an effective way to standardize cancer practice. Yet, the question of whether PROMs can lead to actual improvements in the quality of patient care remains under debate. This review examined whether inclusion of PROM in routine clinical practice is associated with improvements in patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes during active anticancer treatment. Methods: A systematic review of five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], PsycINFO, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection [PBSC]) was conducted from database inception to May 2012 to locate randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials of patients receiving active anticancer treatment or supportive care irrespective of type of cancer. Results: Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 26 articles that reported on 24 unique controlled trials. Wide variability in the design and use of interventions delivered, outcomes evaluated, and cancer- and modality-specific context was apparent. Health service outcomes were only scarcely included as end points. Overall, the number of statistically significant findings were limited and PROMs' intervention effect sizes were predominantly small-to-moderate. Conclusion: The routine use of PROMs increases the frequency of discussion of patient outcomes during consultations. In some studies, PROMs are associated with improved symptom control, increased supportive care measures, and patient satisfaction. Additional effort is required to ensure patient adherence, as well as additional support to clinicians who will respond to patient concerns and issues, with clear system guidelines in place to guide their responses. More research is required to support PROM cost-benefit in terms of patient safety, clinician burden, and health services usage.

KW - treatment outcome

KW - neoplasms

KW - patient satisfaction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902820334&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 1480

EP - 1501

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 14

ER -