Clinicians' knowledge and attitudes towards patient reported outcomes in colorectal cancer care - insights from qualitative interviews.
Cancer care
EORTC
Implementation
Patient-reported outcome measures
Patient-reported outcomes
Routine care
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Apr 2021
20 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
03
12
2020
accepted:
05
04
2021
entrez:
21
4
2021
pubmed:
22
4
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used in cancer care to monitor patients' disease-related symptoms and functional status. However, successful implementation of such instruments is only possible if clinical staff are convinced of the clinical benefits. It is therefore crucial to investigate the attitudes of clinical staff to PROs in routine cancer care. Semi-structured, guideline-based interviews were held with 12 clinicians working in certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany who are taking part in an observational study on PROs (five surgeons, two oncologists, one psycho-oncologist, two oncological care nurses, one stoma therapist, and one physician assistant) in order to investigate firstly, how clinicians describe PRO instruments ("wording"); and secondly, the clinicians' general attitude toward PROs. A qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz was performed. The wording used to describe PROs was not consistent. Statements on attitudes toward PROs were very heterogeneous and were therefore categorized into "(rather) positive" and "(rather) negative." The principal advantages of PROs mentioned by participants included broader, structured knowledge about patients and treatment, as well as relevance for patients. Subcategories for (rather) negative attitudes included statements expressing doubts about the questionnaires and "no need for PROs." The clinicians participating mainly expressed fairly positive attitudes toward PROs. However, they had little knowledge about PROs in general and the interviews therefore mainly reflect their expectations and assumptions about them. These initial impressions may be regarded as providing a basis for future implementation strategies and for training of clinicians on how to use PROs in routine cancer care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33879141
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06361-z
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-06361-z
pmc: PMC8056693
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
366Références
Implement Sci. 2007 Aug 03;2:26
pubmed: 17683558
Qual Life Res. 1993 Aug;2(4):287-95
pubmed: 8220363
Am J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct;40(5):464-469
pubmed: 25811297
World J Urol. 2021 Jan;39(1):11-25
pubmed: 31552467
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76
pubmed: 8433390
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65
pubmed: 26644527
Cancer. 2017 May 15;123(10):1839-1847
pubmed: 28081292
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Sep 1;22(17):3485-90
pubmed: 15337796
Qual Life Res. 2015 Jul;24(7):1707-18
pubmed: 25589231
Br J Cancer. 2012 Feb 28;106(5):826-38
pubmed: 22315052
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Nov;45(17):3017-26
pubmed: 19765978
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):13-24
pubmed: 16557505
J Biomed Inform. 2010 Feb;43(1):159-72
pubmed: 19615467
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Oct 3;2:46
pubmed: 30363333
Implement Sci. 2014 Nov 23;9:172
pubmed: 25417046
Qual Life Res. 2019 Nov;28(11):2871-2887
pubmed: 31364037
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
Support Care Cancer. 2019 Jul;27(7):2395-2412
pubmed: 30982095
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Sep 21;8:104
pubmed: 20858248
Qual Life Res. 2020 Jul 10;:
pubmed: 32651805
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019 Dec 30;3(1):75
pubmed: 31889232
Eur J Cancer. 2020 May;130:102-113
pubmed: 32179445