Real-Time Clinical Application of Quality-of-Life Assessment in Advanced Lung Cancer

Chang, Chih Hung; Cella, David; Masters, Gregory A.; Laliberté, Nicole; O’Brien, Paul H.; Peterman, Amy H.; Shevrin, Daniel H.

doi:10.3816/clc.2002.n.020

Cited by 34 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, in addition to assessing outcome, serial assessments of these issues may be prognostic of later clinical events. This can help to justify routine clinical assessments of these and other lung cancer symptoms [27], a secondary application of the FLSI-12. Finally, the addition of a single item to assess the degree of bother due to treatment side effects can be useful in determining a treatment's therapeutic index.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Lung Symptom Index-12 (FLSI-12)

Eton¹,

Cella²,

Yount³

et al. 2007

Lung Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Lung Symptom Index-12 (FLSI-12)

Eton¹,

Cella²,

Yount³

et al. 2007

Lung Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…5 Other articles exist that comment solely on the acceptability and feasibility of PCOMs implementation. 52,53 However, these did not meet the inclusion criteria, and comprehensive synthesis of this evidence is outside the scope of this review.…”

Section: Acceptability and Feasibilitymentioning

confidence: 94%

Capture, Transfer, and Feedback of Patient-Centered Outcomes Data in Palliative Care Populations: Does It Make a Difference? A Systematic Review

Etkind

Daveson

Kwok

et al. 2015

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

179

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is argued that a significant barrier to the collection and use of PROMs in the care of individual patients is the 'impracticality and burden of real-time administration and scoring of paper forms in the clinic'. 292 However, developments in IT now mean that patients can complete PROMs electronically through tablets and mobile phones and via the internet: so-called ePROs. It has been hypothesised that the electronic collection of PROMs data can facilitate their use in routine clinical practice by providing real-time data to both clinicians and patients.…”

Section: Patient-reported Outcome Measures Feedback Is Not Practical mentioning

confidence: 99%

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

Greenhalgh

Dalkin

Gooding

et al. 2017

Health Serv Deliv Res

176

263

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy.ObjectivesTo (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care.DesignTwo separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care.InterventionsAggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings.Main outcome measuresAggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being.Data sourcesSearches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking.Review methodsRealist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care.ResultsProviders were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit.Strengths and limitationsThere was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories.ConclusionsPROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality.Future workFuture research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005938.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Real-Time Clinical Application of Quality-of-Life Assessment in Advanced Lung Cancer

Cited by 34 publications

References 18 publications

Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Lung Symptom Index-12 (FLSI-12)

Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Lung Symptom Index-12 (FLSI-12)

Capture, Transfer, and Feedback of Patient-Centered Outcomes Data in Palliative Care Populations: Does It Make a Difference? A Systematic Review

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About