Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32556794›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2020

Personalized symptom management: a quality improvement collaborative for implementation of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in 'real-world' oncology multisite practices.

Doris Howell, Zeev Rosberger, Carole Mayer, Rosanna Faria, Marc Hamel, Anne Snider, Denise Bryant Lukosius, Nicole Montgomery, Mindaugas Mozuraitis, Madeline Li and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Digital symptom monitoring in cancer care: an exploratory evaluation of low uptake and engagement.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A qualitative approach to understanding quality symptom management in routine oncology outpatient care: phase 1 of the symptom pathways project.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Standing the test of time: diagnostic accuracy of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised (ESAS-r) for anxiety and depression screening.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. PatientEClinicalMedicine · 2025
    Review
  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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Doris HowellUniversity Health Network (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre), 610 University Health Network Room 15-617, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada. Doris.howell@uhn.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0683-8715
Zeev RosbergerLady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Carole MayerHealth Sciences North Research Institute, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
Rosanna FariaMontreal West Island Integrated University Health & Social Services Center, St. Mary's Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Marc HamelPsychosocial Oncology Department, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Anne SniderJuravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Denise Bryant LukosiusJuravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Nicole MontgomeryCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mindaugas MozuraitisCenter for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Madeline LiUniversity Health Network (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre), 610 University Health Network Room 15-617, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada.
iPEHOC Collaborative Team
Juravinski Cancer Centre · CAUniversity Health Network · CACancer Care Ontario · CACentre for Addiction and Mental Health · CAHealth Sciences North · CAJewish General Hospital · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CASt Mary's Hospital Centre · CA

Funding

Canadian Partnership Against Cancer 0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle research has focused on implementation of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (e-PROs) for meaningful use in patient management in 'real-world' oncology practices. Our quality improvement collaborative used multi-faceted implementation strategies including audit and feedback, disease-site champions and practice coaching, core training of clinicians in a person-centered clinical method for use of e-PROs in shared treatment planning and patient activation, ongoing educational outreach and shared collaborative learnings to facilitate integration of e-PROs data in multi-sites in Ontario and Quebec, Canada for personalized management of generic and targeted symptoms of pain, fatigue, and emotional distress (depression, anxiety). PATIENTS AND

methodsWe used a mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative data) program evaluation design to assess process/implementation outcomes including e-PROs completion rates, acceptability/use from the perspective of patients/clinicians, and patient experience (surveys, qualitative focus groups). We secondarily explored impact on symptom severity, patient activation and healthcare utilization (Ontario sites only) comparing a pre/post population cohort not exposed/exposed to our implementation intervention using Mann Whitney U tests. We hypothesized that the iPEHOC intervention would result in a reduction in symptom severity, healthcare utilization, and higher patient activation. We also identified key implementation strategies that sites perceived as most valuable to uptake and any barriers.

resultsOver 6000 patients completed e-PROs, with sites reaching 51%-95% population completion rates depending on initial readiness. e-PROs were acceptable to patients for communicating symptoms (76%) and by clinicians for treatment planning (80%). Patient experience was better than the provincial average. Compared to the pre-population, we observed a significant reduction in levels of anxiety (p = 0.008), higher levels of patient activation (p = 0.045), and reduced hospitalization rates (12.3% not exposed vs 10.1% exposed, p = 0.034). A pre/post population trend towards significance for reduced emergency department visit rates (14.8% not exposed vs 12.8% exposed, p = 0.081) was also noted.

conclusionThis large-scale pragmatic quality improvement project demonstrates the impact of implementation strategies and a collaborative improvement approach on acceptability of using PROs in clinical practice and their potential for reducing anxiety and healthcare utilization; and improving patient experience and patient activation when implemented in 'real-world' multi-site oncology practices.

Indexed as

CancerHealth care utilizationMultisiteOncology practicesPatient reported outcomesQI collaborativeReal world implementation

Identifiers

PMID32556794
PMCPMC7300168
OpenAlexW3035828075

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.