PRO-ONKO—selection of patient-reported outcome assessments for the clinical use in cancer patients—a mixed-method multicenter cross-sectional exploratory study

Purpose Cancer patients frequently suffer from multiple symptoms often impairing functional status and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). A comprehensive assessment including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is recommended to enable individualized supportive care. However, PRO assessments are s...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:Supportive care in cancer Ročník 24; číslo 6; s. 2503 - 2512
Hlavní autori: Schmidt, Heike, Merkel, Daniela, Koehler, Michael, Flechtner, Hans-Henning, Sigle, Jörg, Klinge, Bernd, Jordan, Karin, Vordermark, Dirk, Landenberger, Margarete, Jahn, Patrick
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.06.2016
Springer
Springer Nature B.V
Predmet:
Adult
Aged
Archives & records
Cancer
Cancer patients
Cancer research
Care and treatment
Clinical assessment
Clinical decision making
Clinical medicine
Clinical outcomes
Clinics
Cross-Sectional Studies
Data collection
Decision Making
Documentation
Drug effects
Evaluation
Fatigue - diagnosis
Female
Functional status
Health services
Health status
Humans
Interdisciplinary aspects
Male
Measures
Medical decision making
Medical personnel
Medical records
Medical screening
Medical treatment
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Methods
Middle Aged
Mixed methods research
Multiple symptoms
Neoplasms - diagnosis
Neoplasms - therapy
Nursing
Nursing Research
Oncology
Original Article
Pain Medicine
Patient Outcome Assessment
Patient outcomes
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patients
Psychological distress
Qualitative research
Quality of Life
Questionnaires
Rehabilitation Medicine
Research Design
Sadness
Side effects
Surveys and Questionnaires
Symptoms
Usefulness
Screening
Patient-reported outcomes
Monitoring
Supportive therapy
Cancer
Quality of life
ISSN:0941-4355, 1433-7339, 1433-7339
On-line prístup:Získať plný text
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:Purpose Cancer patients frequently suffer from multiple symptoms often impairing functional status and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). A comprehensive assessment including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is recommended to enable individualized supportive care. However, PRO assessments are still not part of routine clinical practice. Therefore, this project aimed to compile an item pool from validated assessment instruments to facilitate the use of PROs for clinical decision-making in oncology clinics. Methods This qualitative dominant mixed-method cross-sectional exploratory study was carried out in four centers and comprised two stages. Stage I: Six interdisciplinary focus groups were conducted to choose questionnaires meeting particular clinical requirements. Stage II: Adult patients with heterogeneous cancer diagnoses, receiving in- or out-patient treatment were asked to participate and complete the chosen questionnaires (participation 71/74). Resulting PROs were compared with clinical records. Health care professionals (HCPs) and patients rated the usefulness for routine clinical practice. Results The European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and Distress Thermometer were chosen for screening and M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and EORTC single items for monitoring. Comparison of n  = 88 PRO assessments with clinical records showed consistent documentation of side effects like fever and emesis. Symptoms like fatigue, sadness, or sleep disturbance were not documented regularly in the medical records but captured by PRO assessments. Patients and HCPs judged the chosen questionnaires and electronic data collection as useful. Conclusions Future studies should examine how PROs can complement or substitute routine documentation in order to achieve standardized assessment and documentation during the treatment process in different settings and examine possible benefits for patients.
Bibliografia:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0941-4355
1433-7339
1433-7339
DOI:10.1007/s00520-015-3055-4