Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Relevant content for a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire for use in oncology clinical practice: Putting doctors and patients on the same page

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate relevant patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains for oncology clinical practice.

Methods

We conducted cross-sectional semi-structured telephone interviews with patients with breast and prostate cancer and clinicians. Using open-ended questions followed by structured prompts of PRO domains, subjects were asked what they currently discuss during visits and which topics are relevant for a clinical practice PRO. For each domain, we calculated the percentage of patients and clinicians who responded positively. A qualitative thematic content analysis identified barriers and benefits of using PROs in clinical practice.

Results

A total of 41 patients (21 breast cancer and 20 prostate cancer) and 15 clinicians (7 medical oncologists, 5 radiation oncologists, and 3 surgeons) completed the interviews. In general, clinicians and patients reported that the topics explored were relevant. Barriers to using PROs in clinical practice include (1) time constraints, (2) varying relevance of questions, (3) value of the conversational approach, (4) decreased usefulness in established relationships, and (5) respondent burden. Benefits of PROs in clinical practice include (1) identifying problems, (2) serving as a reminder of topics to discuss, and (3) tracking changes over time.

Conclusions

PROs in clinical practice may help triage issues and focus discussions. Computer-adaptive tests should be explored to tailor questionnaires to patients’ specific issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CAT:

Computer-adaptive test

PRO:

Patient-reported outcome

References

  1. Epstein, R. M., & Street, R. L. (2007). Patient-centered communication in cancer care: Promoting healing and reducing suffering. National Cancer Institute, NIH Publication No. 07–6225. Maryland: Bethesda.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Donaldson, M. (2009). Taking PROs and patient-centered care seriously: Incremental and disruptive ideas for incorporating PROs in oncology practice. Quality of Life Research, 17, 1323–1330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Greenhalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R. (2005). The use of patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: Lack of impact or lack of theory? Social Science and Medicine, 60, 833–843.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rose, M., & Bezjak, A. (2009). Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: An overview and practical examples. Quality of Life Research, 18, 125–136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4, 293–307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Snyder, C. F., Dy, S. M., Hendricks, D. E., et al. (2007). Asking the right questions: Investigating needs assessments and health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in oncology clinical practice. Supportive Care in Cancer, 15, 1075–1085.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Velikova, G., Awad, N., Coles-Gale, R., Wright, E. P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2008). The clinical value of quality of life assessment in oncology practice–a qualitative study of patient and physician views. Psycho-Oncology, 17, 690–698.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hambleton, R. (2005). Applications of item response theory to improve health outcomes assessment: Developing item banks, linking instruments, and computer adaptive testing. In J. Lipscomb, C. C. Gotay, & C. Snyder (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods, and applications (pp. 445–464). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Institutes of Health. Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). http://www.nihpromis.org. Accessed 24 September 2009.

  11. Detmar, S. B., Aaronson, N. K., Wever, L. D. V., Muller, M., & Schornagel, J. H. (2000). How are you feeling? Who wants to know? Patients’ and oncologists’ preferences for discussing health-related quality of life issues. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18, 3295–3301.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hilarius, D. L., Kloeg, P. H. A. M., Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., & Aaronson, N. K. (2007). Level of agreement between patient self-report and observer ratings of health-related quality of life communication in oncology. Patient Education and Counseling, 65, 95–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Mentored Research Scholar Grant from the American Cancer Society (MRSG-08-011-01-CPPB; PI: Snyder). We appreciate the participation of the clinicians and patients in this study, with special thanks to the clinicians who assisted us with recruiting their patients.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 624 N. Broadway, Room 657, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA

    Claire F. Snyder

  2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Claire F. Snyder, Roxanne E. Jensen, Gail Geller & Albert W. Wu

  3. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Gail Geller, Michael A. Carducci & Albert W. Wu

Authors
  1. Claire F. Snyder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roxanne E. Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gail Geller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael A. Carducci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Albert W. Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire F. Snyder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Snyder, C.F., Jensen, R.E., Geller, G. et al. 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 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9655-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9655-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation