Patient-reported outcome measures and supportive care need assessment in patients attending an Australian comprehensive care centre: a multi-method study

Naehrig, Diana; Dhillon, Haryana M.; Asher, Rebecca; Grimison, Peter; Grant, Suzanne; Lacey, Judith

doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06028-9

Cited by 7 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the total 17 papers, 8 introduced a study in which study participants had used only ePROs [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. In the other 9 papers [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37], only some of the participants had used ePROs, while others had used nondigital PROMs. The ePRO systems used were AmbuFlex [21,26], OncoQuest [22], Noona [23], the KLIK method [25], and PatientViewpoint [28].…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No type of cancer was particularly emphasized, but PROMs were used in different target populations, such as patients with breast, lung, head and neck, prostate, melanoma cancer, and pediatric patients with cancer. The most frequently used PROM was the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) [32][33][34]. Studies were carried out in multiple countries: the Netherlands [22,25,31], Germany [27,29], the United Kingdom [24], the United States [23,28,35,37], Denmark [21,26], Canada [32,34], Australia [33] Laitio et al JMIR CANCER…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most frequently used PROM was the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) [32][33][34]. Studies were carried out in multiple countries: the Netherlands [22,25,31], Germany [27,29], the United Kingdom [24], the United States [23,28,35,37], Denmark [21,26], Canada [32,34], Australia [33] Laitio et al JMIR CANCER…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Barriers to value were captured by 14 comments identified in 6 papers [22,28,33,[35][36][37]. Some HCPs expressed concern that patients may not see the point of using ePRO [36,37]; it may be that it takes too much time [22] and that they end up feeling overburdened [33] or experience fatigue by the process [36]. The lack of home access to ePROs [22] and the lack of feedback from physicians [22] were also mentioned.…”

Section: Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study

Laitio¹,

Giunti²,

Halonen³

2023

JMIR Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cancer is a major global health problem. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) systems have been developed to support the treatment of patients with cancer. Although clear evidence of the benefits of the routine use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) exists, engaging physicians in using these systems has been challenging. Objective This study aims to identify and analyze what is currently known about health care professionals’ (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators that exist and influence the use of ePRO systems for cancer care. Methods We carried out a systematic mapping study by conducting searches of 3 databases (Association for Computing Machinery, PubMed, and Scopus). Eligible papers were published between 2010 and 2021, and they described HCPs’ perspectives on using ePROs. The data on the included papers were extracted, a thematic meta-synthesis was performed, and 7 themes were summarized into 3 categories. Results A total of 17 papers were included in the study. The HCPs’ perceived barriers and facilitators of using ePROs can be summarized into 7 themes: clinical workflow, organization and infrastructure, value to patients, value to HCPs, digital health literacy, usability, and data visualization and perceived features. These themes can be further summarized into 3 categories: work environment, value to users, and suggested features. According to the study, ePROs should be interoperable with hospital electronic health records and adapted to the hospital workflow. HCPs should get appropriate support for their use. Additional features are needed for ePROs, and special attention should be paid to data visualization. Patients should have the option to use web-based ePROs at home and complete it at the time most valuable to the treatment. Patients’ ePRO notes need attention during clinical visits, but ePRO use should not limit patient-clinician face-to-face communication. Conclusions The study revealed that several aspects need improvement in ePROs and their operating environments. By improving these aspects, HCPs’ experience with ePROs will enhance, and thus, there will be more facilitating factors for HCPs to use ePROs than those available today. More national and international knowledge about using ePROs is still needed to cover the need for information to develop them and their operating environments to meet the needs of HCPs.

show abstract

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study

Laitio¹,

Giunti²,

Halonen³

2023

JMIR Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The determination of educational needs in order of priority is the first step in educational planning. Therefore, caregivers involved in the treatment-care process, especially nurses, should determine the patient's educational needs during the disease course and shortly thereafter [ 13 , 14 ]. Numerous factors such as shorter hospital stay, early bed exit, readiness to recover, adaptation to illness, acceptance of new conditions, prevention of problems and complications caused by the illness, lifestyle changes, and treatment adherence based on the assessment and determination of patient educational needs are the prominent necessities of patient education [ 13 , 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The COVID-19 patients' educational needs assessment questionnaire (COPENAQ): development and psychometrics

Hajialibeigloo

Moradi

Habibzadeh

et al. 2022

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite the importance of assessing COVID-19 patients' educational needs, there is currently no standard tool for a comprehensive assessment of these needs. The present study was aimed at developing a questionnaire to assess the educational needs of COVID-19 patients and determining its psychometric properties. Methods This study was conducted using an exploratory sequential mixed methods design in 3 stages. At the first stage, patients' educational needs were explained and determined using conventional content analysis so that a total of 15 COVID-19 patients were first selected using purposive sampling and then interviewed. At the second stage, the questionnaire items were developed using the qualitative findings and a review of valid sources related to the study subject. At the third stage, the psychometric properties of the questionnaire were determined using internal consistency reliability and the face, content, and construct validities. Results The mean content validity ratio and the content validity index were obtained to be 0.94 and 0.92, respectively. The internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, which was measured to be 0.97. Based on the exploratory factor analysis, the questionnaire was developed with 36 items in four subscales of "disease recognition and treatment follow-up", "prevention of infection transmission", "medication regimen", and "psychological and physiological needs". The results of confirmatory factor analysis also showed appropriateness and approval of the structural model obtained from the questionnaire. Conclusion This questionnaire was found to have the necessary psychometric criteria (validity and reliability) so that it can be applied to assess the educational needs of COVID-19 patients and provide better and more effective patient education for them.

show abstract

Community-based outpatient rehabilitation for the treatment of breast cancer-related upper extremity disability: an evaluation of practice-based evidence

Covington¹,

Hidde

Kendig³

et al. 2022

Breast Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient-reported outcome measures and supportive care need assessment in patients attending an Australian comprehensive care centre: a multi-method study

Cited by 7 publications

References 29 publications

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study

The COVID-19 patients' educational needs assessment questionnaire (COPENAQ): development and psychometrics

Community-based outpatient rehabilitation for the treatment of breast cancer-related upper extremity disability: an evaluation of practice-based evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About