Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32041593›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2020

What are the attitudes of health professionals regarding patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in oncology practice? A mixed-method synthesis of the qualitative evidence.

Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig, Yvonne Tran, Mia Bierbaum, Gaston Arnolda, Geoff P Delaney, Winston Liauw, Robyn L Ward, Ian Olver, David Currow, Afaf Girgis and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Barriers and facilitators for implementing patient-reported outcome measures in oncology practices: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Implementing cancer symptom management interventions utilizing patient-reported outcomes: a pre-implementation evaluation of barriers and facilitators.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Bróna Nic Giolla EaspaigAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, 2109, Australia. brona.nicgiollaeaspaig@mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6787-056X
Yvonne TranAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Mia BierbaumAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Gaston ArnoldaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Geoff P DelaneyLiverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool, NSW, 2170, Australia.
Winston LiauwSt. George Cancer Care Centre, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, 2217, Australia.
Robyn L WardFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Ian OlverFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
David CurrowCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.
Afaf GirgisSouth Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, NSW, 2170, Australia.
Ivana DurcinoskaSouth Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, NSW, 2170, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Macquarie University · AUUNSW Sydney · AULiverpool Hospital · AUSt George Hospital · AUThe University of Adelaide · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP9100002; APP1135048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe adoption of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in cancer care has been widely advocated, but little is known about the evidence for the implementation of PROMs in practice. Qualitative research captures the perspectives of health professionals as end-users of PROMs and can be used to inform adoption efforts. This paper presents a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research conducted to address the question: What are the attitudes of health professionals towards PROMs in oncology, including any barriers and facilitators to the adoption of PROMS, reported in qualitative evidence?

methodsSystematic searches of qualitative evidence were undertaken in four databases and reviewed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies published in English between 1998 and 2018, which reported qualitative findings about the attitudes of health professionals working in oncology towards PROMs were eligible. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme's Qualitative Research Checklist. A sentiment analysis was conducted on primary text to examine the polarity (neutral, positive or negative) of health professionals' views of PROMs. Qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted using a constant comparative analysis.

resultsFrom 1227 articles after duplicates were removed, with 1014 excluded against the screening criteria, 213 full text articles remained and were assessed; 34 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. The majority of studies were of good quality. Sentiment analysis on primary text demonstrated an overall positive polarity from the expressed opinions of health professionals. The meta-synthesis showed health professionals' attitudes in four domains: identifying patient issues and needs using PROMs; managing and addressing patient issues; the care experience; and the integration of PROMs into clinical practice.

conclusionsFrom the accounts of health professionals, the fit of PROMs with existing practice, how PROMs are valued, capacity to respond to PROMs and the supports in place, formed the key factors which may impede or promote adoption of PROMs in routine practice. To assist policy-makers and services involved in implementing these initiatives, further evidence is required about the relationship between PROMs data collection and corresponding clinical actions.

trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019119447, 6th March, 2019.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelMedical OncologyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchHealth professional attitudesImplementing practice changeOncologyPatient reported outcome measuresPROMsQualitative synthesis

Identifiers

PMID32041593
PMCPMC7011235
OpenAlexW3005798737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.