Verwendung und Nutzen von Patient-Reported Outcomes in der onkologischen Behandlung: eine Übersicht

Wintner, Lisa M.; Giesinger, Johannes M.; Kemmler, Georg; Sztankay, Monika; Oberguggenberger, Anne; Gamper, Eva‐Maria; Sperner‐Unterweger, Barbara; Holzner, Bernhard

doi:10.1007/s00508-012-0168-3

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) regarding symptoms and quality of life (QOL) have become an important part of cancer clinical trials and routine care, as there is strong evidence that clinicians’ ratings alone do not present a complete picture of cancer patients’ symptom burdens [ 1 – 5 ]. Studies emphasise the additional benefit of the use of PROs (improved symptom management [ 6 ], better identification of intimate or psychosocial problems [ 7 ], enhanced communication between health care professionals and patients [ 7 – 9 ]) and the administration of validated questionnaires via specialized software helps to overcome common implementation barriers to the routine use of PROs (e.g., administrative obstacles, concerns that electronic assessments might use more resources than they save) [ 10 , 11 ]. Electronic PRO (ePRO) assessment is generally well accepted by patients [ 6 , 12 ] can be conducted in an efficient and timely manner, and both in clinical settings and in patients’ homes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment with cancer patients in the hospital and at home

Wintner

Giesinger

Zabernigg

et al. 2015

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PRO) provide a more comprehensive picture of patients’ quality of life than do mere physicians’ ratings. Electronic data collection of PRO offers several advantages and allows assessments at patients’ homes as well. This study reports on patients’ personal internet use, their attitudes towards electronic and web-based PRO assessment (clinic-ePRO and home-ePRO) and the feasibility of these two assessment modes.MethodsAt the Medical University of Innsbruck and Kufstein County Hospital, cancer patients who participated in clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO were asked to complete a comprehensive evaluation form on their personal internet usage, attitudes towards and the feasibility of routine clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO with the Computer-based Health Evaluation System (CHES) software.ResultsIn total, 113 patients completed the evaluation form for clinic-ePRO (Ø 45 years, SD 14) and 45 patients for home-ePRO (Ø 58 years, SD 10; 33.1 per cent inclusion rate for this sample). Most patients expressed willingness to complete routine clinic-ePRO assessments in the future (94.7 per cent of clinic-ePRO patients and 84.4 per cent of home-ePRO patients) and to discuss their data with attending physicians (82.2 per cent, home-ePRO patients only). Overall, patients preferred the software over paper-pencil questionnaires (67.2 per cent of clinic-ePRO patients and 60 per cent of home-ePRO patients) and experienced it as easy to use. Only a few minor suggestions for improvement were made (e.g. adjustable font sizes).ConclusionsThe use of clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO was in general shown to be feasible and well accepted. However, to be more inclusive in the implementation of clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO, educational programs concerning their particular benefit in oncology practice potentially could enhance patients’ attitudes towards, and consequently their acceptance of and compliance with electronic PRO assessments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment with cancer patients in the hospital and at home

Wintner

Giesinger

Zabernigg

et al. 2015

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"A PRO is any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else" (Definition of the American food and drug administration -FDA [37]). Mit Patient Reported Outcomes wird also der subjektiv empfundene Gesundheitszustand des Patienten abgebildet, den er selbst einschätzt und darüber berichtet [38,39]. PRO kann über Konstrukte wie Quality of Life oder körperliche Funktionstätigkeit, Symptome sowie persönliche Erfahrungen gemessen werden [40].…”

Section: Implikationen Für Praxis Und Wissenschaftunclassified

Objektive oder subjektive Qualität?

Raab

Fischer

Mauler

2020

Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Zielsetzung Der vorliegende Artikel befasst sich mit der Überprüfung möglicher Zusammenhänge zwischen Kriterien der Behandlungsqualität, der Zufriedenheit und der Weiterempfehlung von Patienten einer Akutklinik mittels statistischer Verfahren. Methodik Datengrundlage bilden QSR-Daten (Qualitätssicherung mit Routinedaten) und Ergebnisse des PEQ (Patients’ Experience Questionnaire) aus dem AOK Krankenhausnavigator am Beispiel der Prozedur „Einsetzen eines künstlichen Kniegelenks“. Die Analyse und Interpretation der online gewonnenen Daten erfolgt mithilfe des Statistikprogramms SPSS unter Anwendung deskriptiver und induktiver Statistik. Ergebnisse ▪ Geringer signifikanter Zusammenhang der Kriterien der Behandlungsqualität und der Gesamtzufriedenheit der Patienten. ▪ Schwacher Einfluss der Behandlungsqualität auf die Weiterempfehlung der Patienten. ▪ Kliniken mit überdurchschnittlicher Qualität erreichen höchste Weiterempfehlungsquoten. Kliniken mit unterdurchschnittlicher Qualität erzielen signifikant bessere Ergebnisse hinsichtlich Weiterempfehlung als Kliniken mit durchschnittlicher Qualität. ▪ Zufriedenheit mit ärztlicher Versorgung sowie Zufriedenheit mit Organisation und Service haben großen Einfluss auf die Weiterempfehlung aus Patientensicht. Schlussfolgerung Objektive Qualitätsmerkmale der Klinik haben nur geringe Auswirkungen auf die Weiterempfehlung einer Klinik durch den Patienten. Relevant sind subjektiv wahrgenommene Merkmale wie die Zufriedenheit mit ärztlicher Versorgung oder die Zufriedenheit mit Organisation und Service. Bereitgestellte Qualitätsberichte müssen patientengerecht gestaltet werden bspw. durch die Ergänzung von für den Patienten relevanten Informationen wie Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO).

show abstract

“…Many studies indicate that the use of PROs has been found to be useful, but there is often a lack of clear interpretation and structure for the application of the instrument in clinical routine [15]. From a clinician’s point of view, frequent barriers for implementation of PROs are lack of time, lack of training and support, and low personal confidence [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation analysis of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in oncological routine care: an observational study protocol

Görlach

Schrage

Bokemeyer

et al. 2020

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe successful implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical routine faces many challenges, first and foremost the lack of consideration thereof in the patient care process. The aim of this study will be to first identify relevant barriers and facilitators and then design suitable implementation strategies which will be evaluated to improve the effectiveness of a PRO measure assessment in inpatient and outpatient cancer routine care.MethodsDuring the preparation phase, interviews with oncological patients (N = 28) and medical staff (N = 4) as well as focus groups with medical staff (N = 18) across five different departments caring for cancer patients were conducted. On the basis of these, qualitative content analysis revealed relevant barriers and facilitators for implementation of PROs in cancer care. Subsequently, implementation strategies and a model of implementation were developed. In the study phase, implementation strategies will be evaluated based on nine different implementation outcomes in five different oncological clinics. Evaluation of the implementation process will take place during three months in each clinic and data will be conducted pre, while and post implementation of the PRO measure. Therefore a sample size of 60 participants of whom 30 staff members and 30 participants will be questioned using existing and newly developed implementation outcome evaluation instruments.DiscussionKey to improving the effectiveness of PRO assessment in the time-critical clinical environment is the utilization of easy-to-use, electronic PRO questionnaires directly linked to patients’ records thereby improving consideration of PROs in patient care. In order to validate the effectiveness of this implementation process further, an evaluation parallel to implementation following an observational study design with a mixed-methods approach will be conducted. This study could contribute to the development of adequate evaluation processes of implementation of PROs to foster sustainable integration of PRO measures into routine cancer care.Trial registrationThis study was registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/y7xce/).

show abstract

Verwendung und Nutzen von Patient-Reported Outcomes in der onkologischen Behandlung: eine Übersicht

Cited by 14 publications

References 48 publications

Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment with cancer patients in the hospital and at home

Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment with cancer patients in the hospital and at home

Objektive oder subjektive Qualität?

Implementation analysis of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in oncological routine care: an observational study protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About