Knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a comprehensive cancer center

被引:13
作者
Brunelli, Cinzia [1 ]
Zito, Emanuela [2 ]
Alfieri, Sara [3 ]
Borreani, Claudia [3 ]
Roli, Anna [4 ]
Caraceni, Augusto [1 ]
Apolone, Giovanni [5 ]
机构
[1] Fdn IRCCS Ist Nazl Tumori, Palliat Care Pain Therapy & Rehabil Unit, Milan, Italy
[2] Fdn IRCCS Ist Nazl Tumori, Informat & Commun Technol Unit, Milan, Italy
[3] Fdn IRCCS Ist Nazl Tumori, Clin Psychol Unit, Via Venezian 1, I-20133 Milan, Italy
[4] Fdn IRCCS Ist Nazl Tumori, Qual Educ & Data Protect Unit, Milan, Italy
[5] Fdn IRCCS Ist Nazl Tumori, Sci Directorate, Milan, Italy
关键词
Oncology; PROMs; Patient-reported outcome; Quality of life; SYMPTOM ASSESSMENT SYSTEM; ONTARIO; IMPROVE;
D O I
10.1186/s12885-022-09269-x
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background Despite evidence of the positive impact of routine assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their systematic collection is not widely implemented in cancer care. Aim To assess the knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards PROMs and electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs) in clinical practice and research and to explore respondent-related factors associated with the above dimensions. Method An ad hoc developed online survey was administered to all HCPs employed in clinical activity in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. The survey investigated which PROMs were known and used, as well as HCPs' opinions on the advantages and drawbacks of routine PROM assessment, including electronic assessment (ePROM). Linear and logistic regression models were used for association analyses. Results Five Hundred Eleven of nine hundred ninety-two invited HCPs (52%) provided analyzable responses. 68% were women, 46% were nurses and 42% physicians, and 52.5% had > 20 years seniority. The average number of PROMs known was six among 17 proposed. All proved to be under-used (< 28%) except unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales (77 and 36%). Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards PROMs, with strengths outweighing weaknesses (mean overall scores 3.6 and 2.9, respectively, on a 1-5 scale). 67% of respondents preferred electronic collection over paper and pencil. Profession was associated with knowledge and use (physicians reported knowing more PROMs than other professionals) and with a preference for electronic collection (nurses were less likely to prefer the electronic format than physicians). Senior HCPs were slightly more critical about both PROMs and electronic administration. Conclusions This survey indicates an acceptable level of knowledge of common PROM tools but low usage in practice. Based on the generally positive attitude of HCPs, routine implementation of ePROMs can be promoted as long as adequate resources and training are provided.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Multidisciplinary Health Care Professionals' Perceptions of the Use and Utility of a Symptom Assessment System for Oncology Patients
    Bainbridge, Daryl
    Seow, Hsien
    Sussman, Jonathan
    Pond, Greg
    Martelli-Reid, Lorraine
    Herbert, Carole
    Evans, William
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE, 2011, 7 (01) : 19 - 23
  • [2] The impact of routine Edmonton symptom assessment system use on receiving palliative care services: results of a population-based retrospective-matched cohort analysis
    Barbera, Lisa
    Sutradhar, Rinku
    Earle, Craig C.
    Howell, Doris
    Mittman, Nicole
    Li, Qing
    Thiruchelvam, Deva
    Seow, Hsien
    [J]. BMJ SUPPORTIVE & PALLIATIVE CARE, 2023, 13 (E1) : E144 - E149
  • [3] The impact of routine Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) use on overall survival in cancer patients: Results of a population-based retrospective matched cohort analysis
    Barbera, Lisa
    Sutradhar, Rinku
    Seow, Hsien
    Mittmann, Nicole
    Howell, Doris
    Earle, Craig C.
    Li, Qing
    Thiruchelvam, Deva
    [J]. CANCER MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (19): : 7107 - 7115
  • [4] Impact of Standardized Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Use on Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalization: Results of a Population-Based Retrospective Matched Cohort Analysis
    Barbera, Lisa
    Sutradhar, Rinku
    Seow, Hsien
    Earle, Craig C.
    Howell, Doris
    Mittmann, Nicole
    Li, Qing
    Thiruchelvam, Deva
    [J]. JCO ONCOLOGY PRACTICE, 2020, 16 (09) : 599 - +
  • [5] Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment
    Basch, Ethan
    Deal, Allison M.
    Dueck, Amylou C.
    Scher, Howard I.
    Kris, Mark G.
    Hudis, Clifford
    Schrag, Deborah
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2017, 318 (02): : 197 - 198
  • [6] Patient-Reported Outcomes - Harnessing Patients' Voices to Improve Clinical Care
    Basch, Ethan
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2017, 376 (02) : 105 - 108
  • [7] Missing Patients' Symptoms in Cancer Care Delivery-The Importance of Patient-Reported Outcomes
    Basch, Ethan
    [J]. JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2016, 2 (04) : 433 - 434
  • [8] The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research
    Boyce, Maria B.
    Browne, John P.
    Greenhalgh, Joanne
    [J]. BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, 2014, 23 (06) : 508 - 518
  • [9] PATIENT VOICES, a project for the integration of the systematic assessment of patient reported outcomes and experiences within a comprehensive cancer center: a protocol for a mixed method feasibility study
    Brunelli, Cinzia
    Borreani, Claudia
    Caraceni, Augusto
    Roli, Anna
    Bellazzi, Marco
    Lombi, Linda
    Zito, Emanuela
    Pellegrini, Chiara
    Spada, Pierangelo
    Kaasa, Stein
    Foschi, Anna Maria
    Apolone, Giovanni
    [J]. HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2020, 18 (01)
  • [10] Putting patient-reported outcomes on the 'Big Data Road Map'
    Calvert, Melanie
    Thwaites, Rob
    Kyte, Derek
    Devlin, Nancy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, 2015, 108 (08) : 299 - 303