Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Breast Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.


Journal

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
ISSN: 1524-4733
Titre abrégé: Value Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883818

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2019
Historique:
received: 18 10 2018
revised: 11 02 2019
accepted: 16 04 2019
entrez: 30 9 2019
pubmed: 30 9 2019
medline: 3 6 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to improve care delivery and are becoming part of routine clinical practice. This systematic review aims to give an overview of PROM administration methods and their facilitators and barriers in breast cancer clinical practice. A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Web of Science for potentially relevant articles from study inception to November 2017. Reference lists of screened reviews were also checked. After inclusion of relevant articles, data were extracted and appraised by 2 investigators. A total of 2311 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. Method and frequency of PROM collection varied between studies. The majority of studies described a promising effect of PROM collection on patients (adherence, symptom distress, quality of life, acceptability, and satisfaction), providers (willingness to comply, clinical decision making, symptom management), and care process or system outcomes (referrals, patient-provider communication, hospital visits). A limited number of facilitators and barriers were identified, primarily of a technical and behavioral nature. Although interpreting the impact of PROM collection in breast cancer care is challenging owing to considerations of synergistic (multicomponent) interventions and generalizability issues, this review found that systematic PROM collection has a promising impact on patients, providers, and care processes/ systems. Further standardization and reporting on method and frequency of PROM collection might help increase the effectiveness of PROM interventions and is warranted to enhance their overall impact.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to improve care delivery and are becoming part of routine clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to give an overview of PROM administration methods and their facilitators and barriers in breast cancer clinical practice.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Web of Science for potentially relevant articles from study inception to November 2017. Reference lists of screened reviews were also checked. After inclusion of relevant articles, data were extracted and appraised by 2 investigators.
RESULTS
A total of 2311 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. Method and frequency of PROM collection varied between studies. The majority of studies described a promising effect of PROM collection on patients (adherence, symptom distress, quality of life, acceptability, and satisfaction), providers (willingness to comply, clinical decision making, symptom management), and care process or system outcomes (referrals, patient-provider communication, hospital visits). A limited number of facilitators and barriers were identified, primarily of a technical and behavioral nature.
CONCLUSION
Although interpreting the impact of PROM collection in breast cancer care is challenging owing to considerations of synergistic (multicomponent) interventions and generalizability issues, this review found that systematic PROM collection has a promising impact on patients, providers, and care processes/ systems. Further standardization and reporting on method and frequency of PROM collection might help increase the effectiveness of PROM interventions and is warranted to enhance their overall impact.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31563263
pii: S1098-3015(19)32152-7
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1927
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1197-1226

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Laurentine S E van Egdom (LSE)

Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Arvind Oemrawsingh (A)

Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Lisanne M Verweij (LM)

Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Hester F Lingsma (HF)

Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Linetta B Koppert (LB)

Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Cornelis Verhoef (C)

Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Niek S Klazinga (NS)

Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Jan A Hazelzet (JA)

Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.a.hazelzet@erasmusmc.nl.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH