Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27511830›Full record

ArticlePediatric blood & cancer2016

Healthcare Professionals' Preferences and Perceived Barriers for Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Pediatric Oncology Practice: Moving Toward International Processes of Change.

Sasja A Schepers, Lotte Haverman, Sima Zadeh, Martha A Grootenhuis, Lori Wiener

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric blood & cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Stakeholder perspectives on the use of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal cancer survivorship care in general practice: qualitative study using interviews.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Promise and Perils of Large Language Models for Cancer Survivorship and Supportive Care.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sasja A SchepersDivision of Pediatrics, Psychosocial Department, Academic Medical Centre/Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. s.a.schepers@amc.nl.
Lotte HavermanDivision of Pediatrics, Psychosocial Department, Academic Medical Centre/Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sima ZadehBehavioral Health Core, Pediatric Psychosocial Support and Research Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Martha A GrootenhuisDivision of Pediatrics, Psychosocial Department, Academic Medical Centre/Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Lori WienerBehavioral Health Core, Pediatric Psychosocial Support and Research Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice has been shown to enhance detection of health-related quality of life problems and satisfaction with care in children with cancer. This study seeks to identify which PRO information healthcare professionals (HCPs) find useful and what the perceived barriers for routinely assessing PROs are. PROCEDURE: A total of 352 pediatric HCPs (43% male) from 52 countries completed a semistructured online 28-item questionnaire. Descriptive statistics (percentages) were used to identify highly important PRO information and perceived barriers. HCPs' perceived barriers were compared according to gender, years of work experience, and country using a Fishers exact test.

resultsThe five highest ranked PRO topics relevant in routine assessment by HCPs were as follows: pain (98%), feeling sad or depressed (96%), overall physical symptoms (95%), problems with therapy adherence (94%), and overall emotional issues (93%). Five lowest ranked topics were as follows: difficulties praying (50%), other spiritual concerns (55, 56, and 60%), and feeling bored (60%). Barriers for assessing PROs included: time (58%), insufficient staff (49%), logistics (32%), and financial resources (26%). Providers from developing countries more often reported barriers concerning insufficient staff, logistics, and financial resources.

conclusionsHCPs strongly value the use of physical and psychosocial PROs within pediatric oncology practice, but mainly perceive organizational barriers for routine assessment. To successfully integrate PROs, efforts should be made to address HCP-perceived barriers, such that patient-reported problems can be detected and timely referrals made.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmspatient-reported outcomespediatric oncologypsychosocialquality of life

Identifiers

PMID27511830
PMCPMC6347376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.