Observational studyHealth and quality of life outcomes2020
Implementation analysis of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in oncological routine care: an observational study protocol.
Observational study in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient reported outcomes in oncology: changing perspectives-a systematic review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Pooled it
- When do we need to take action? Cut-off values for the hamburg inventory for measuring quality of life in oncological patients (HELP-6).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Neurosurgical nurses' perspectives of patient-reported outcomes: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: a systematic review based on the consolidated framework for implementation research.Implementation science communications · 2024Review
- Feasibility of Symptom Monitoring During the First Year of Endocrine Therapy for Early Breast Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes Collected via Smartphone App.JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
- Real-world impact of patient-reported outcome measurement on overall survival, healthcare use and treatment discontinuation in cancer patients.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023Observational
- Evaluation of a short instrument for measuring health-related quality of life in oncological patients in routine care (HELP-6): an observational study.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Mobile health interventions for HIV/STI prevention among youth in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): a systematic review of studies reporting implementation outcomes.Implementation science communications · 2021Review
- Scaling-up Health-Arts Programmes: the largest study in the world bringing arts-based mental health interventions into a national health service.BJPsych bulletin · 2021Article
- Adaptation and Evaluation of a Symptom-Monitoring Digital Health Intervention for Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Pilot Mixed-Methods Implementation Study.JMIR formative research · 2020Article
- Development of a Short Instrument for Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncological Patients for Clinical Use: Protocol for an Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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. DISCUSSION: Key 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/).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.