Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33125170›Full record

Observational studyHealth services research2020

Patient-reported outcomes collected in ambulatory oncology practices: Feasibility, patterns, and correlates.

Christopher R Friese, Alex J Fauer, Clare Kuisell, Kari Mendelsohn-Victor, Nathan C Wright, Jennifer J Griggs, Milisa Manojlovich

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
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

7 authors.

Christopher R FrieseCenter for Improving Patient and Population Health, School of Nursing, Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2281-2056
Alex J FauerNational Clinician Scholars Program, David Geffen School of Medicine, and Fielding School of Public Health, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Clare KuisellHillman Scholar in Nursing Innovation, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Kari Mendelsohn-VictorCenter for Improving Patient and Population Health, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Nathan C WrightCenter for Improving Patient and Population Health, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jennifer J GriggsInternal Medicine and Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Milisa ManojlovichSchool of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6101-5535

Funding

Complexity: Innovations in Promoting Health through Team ScienceT32NR016914 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARJORIE E MCCULLAGH · 2017 to 2026
$3.5M
Communication Processes, Technology, and Patient Safety in Ambulatory Oncology SettingsR01HS024914 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI FRIESE, CHRISTOPHER R · 2016 to 2018
$1.4M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS024914NINR NIH HHS T32 NR016914
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the feasibility of soliciting outcomes from adults who received chemotherapy treatment for cancer and describe the patterns and correlates of patient-reported toxicities. DATA SOURCES: Patient survey data from 29 Michigan ambulatory oncology practices collected in 2017. STUDY

designSecondary analysis of patient survey data. Descriptive statistics were generated at the patient and practice levels. Thematic analysis of open-text comments identified clusters of frequently reported toxicities. DATA COLLECTION

methodsPatients completed 11 items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Using a 5-point Likert scale, patients rated the frequency of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and pain; the severity of nausea, vomiting, constipation, numbness/tingling, and pain; and how much numbness/tingling and pain interfered with usual or daily activities. Patients could also report two toxicities in open-text comments. Finally, patients reported unplanned health care service for toxicity or side effect management. PRINCIPAL

findingsOf 3565 eligible patients, 2245 participated (63%) and 457 (20%) rated at least one toxicity as severe/very severe. Across practices, the proportion of patients who reported at least one severe/very severe toxicity ranged from 8% to 50%. Troubling toxicities included pain frequency (mean 2.3, SD 1.3), pain severity (2.1, 1.1), and diarrhea frequency (1.9, 1.0). From completed assessments, 1653 (74%) reported at least one toxicity in open-text comments; fatigue (n = 182), stomach discomfort (n = 53), and skin/nail changes (n = 41) were most frequently reported. Regarding consequences, 156 patients (7%) reported unplanned health care service use: 41 (26%) visited an emergency department and 32 (21%) were admitted to a hospital.

conclusionsQuerying patients on chemotherapy treatment experiences and toxicities was feasible. Toxicity rates varied across practices, which informed quality improvement. Toxicity severity and service use incidence exceed previously published trial data, particularly for pain, fatigue, and gastrointestinal issues. Open-text questions enabled exploration with newer treatment regimens.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAmbulatory Care FacilitiesAntineoplastic AgentsCancer PainFemaleHumansMaleMedical OncologyMichiganNeoplasmsRacial GroupsResidence CharacteristicsSeverity of Illness IndexAntineoplastic Agentsambulatory careoncologypatient-reported outcome measuresquality of health care

Identifiers

PMID33125170
PMCPMC7704472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.