Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27818717›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of pain2016

Using Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Practice.

Sarah A Kelleher, Tamara J Somers, Tracie Locklear, Alexandra D Crosswell, Amy P Abernethy

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of pain, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Self-efficacy for cancer self-management in the context of COVID-19: a cross-sectional survey study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah A KelleherDepartment Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, United States.
Tamara J SomersDepartment Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, United States.
Tracie LocklearCenter for Learning Health Care, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, United States.
Alexandra D CrosswellCenter for Health and Community, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, United States.
Amy P AbernethyCenter for Learning Health Care, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, United States.
Duke University Hospital · USDuke Medical Center · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Inter-disciplinary Program for Training and Mentoring in CER Methods and PracticeKM1CA156687 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI ABERNETHY, AMY P., DELONG, ELIZABETH R. · 2010 to 2010
$2.4M
NCI NIH HHS KM1 CA156687
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsPatient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being implemented into the care of patients with cancer. The use of a standard set of PROs (e.g., pain) in cancer is becoming established and there is interest in what additional PROs might provide valuable information. The goal of this observational study was to examine how the PROs of self-efficacy for pain and other symptoms assessed at the point of service were associated with pain, symptom severity and distress, and physical and psychosocial functioning in a sample of breast and gastrointestinal patients. We also sought to examine differences in these relationships by cancer type (breast and gastrointestinal) as well as understand differences in self-assessment mode (paper/pencil or electronic tablet).

methods178 patients with breast (n=65) and gastrointestinal cancer (n = 113) completed the Chronic Pain Self Efficacy Scale, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaires. Measures were completed with paper and pencil and electronically using a tablet computer while patients waited for their clinical appointment. Responses from the initial completed questionnaires on both the paper and electronic instruments were analyzed.

resultsPatients' self-efficacy scores for pain and other symptoms correlated positively with pain, symptom severity and distress, and physical and psychosocial functioning; patients with lower levels of self-efficacy reported poorer outcomes and functioning overall. The results were independent of cancer type and mode of assessment. No statistically significant differences were found in the PROs when collected by electronic technology versus paper-pencil mode; patients were very satisfied with using the tablet computer to complete the PRO measures. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results suggest that self-efficacy for pain and symptom management may be a beneficial addition to clinic-based PRO assessment batteries for patients with cancer and other chronic diseases. Existing short, validated symptom self-efficacy scales could easily be integrated into clinical practice to help healthcare providers identify patients that might benefit from intervention. Study results also support existing research that suggests electronic approaches are a practical way to collect PRO data, including self-efficacy data, in the clinic. Overall, our data suggest that patients who have particularly low levels of self-efficacy for pain and symptom management may be at risk for higher levels of pain and disability. Thus, if self-efficacy for pain and symptom management were routinely collected at the time of clinical service, psychosocial interventions to improve self-efficacy for pain and symptom management, and in turn overall quality of life, could be implemented in a timely fashion.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeSelf EfficacyHumansMedical OncologySurveys and Questionnairescancerpatient reported outcomesself-efficacy for painsymptom management

Identifiers

PMID27818717
PMCPMC5094273
OpenAlexW2438389884

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.