Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33594511›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Patient-reported outcome measures and supportive care need assessment in patients attending an Australian comprehensive care centre: a multi-method study.

Diana N Naehrig, Haryana M Dhillon, Rebecca Asher, Peter Grimison, Suzanne Grant, Judith Lacey

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Diana N NaehrigDepartment of Integrative Oncology and Supportive Care, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 119-143 Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, 2050, NSW, Australia.
Haryana M DhillonCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision Making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4039-5169
Rebecca AsherNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2502-4693
Peter GrimisonSydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2653-1657
Suzanne GrantDepartment of Integrative Oncology and Supportive Care, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 119-143 Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, 2050, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9491-203X
Judith LaceyDepartment of Integrative Oncology and Supportive Care, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 119-143 Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, 2050, NSW, Australia. judith.lacey@lh.org.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3751-406X
The University of Sydney · AUChris O’Brien Lifehouse · AU

Funding

Gloria Vallarta Fellowship (Philantropic funding) na
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are useful clinical tools to recognise symptoms, patient needs and their severity. Whilst PROMs are routinely utilised in integrative oncology (IO) and supportive care (SC) services to improve patient care, they are not as common in general oncology. We explored our patients' symptom burden, the approach taken by clinicians to identify and manage patient needs, and barriers and facilitators to using PROMs in an Australian tertiary comprehensive cancer centre to inform wider implementation of PROMs.

methodsFrom 2017 to 2018, PROM data collected for patients accessing IO and SC was retrospectively analysed. Semi-structured interviews with oncology doctors and nurses explored their approach to patient needs assessment and their use of PROMs.

resultsA total of 404 patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). The most frequently identified symptoms were sleep disturbance, fatigue and lack of wellbeing. Symptom clusters included drowsiness, fatigue and shortness of breath; anxiety and depression; sleep and pain; appetite and nausea. In total, 9 nurse consultants, 5 surgeons, 7 medical and 5 radiation oncologists were interviewed. Most participants took an intuitive approach to identifying and managing patient needs and did not routinely use PROMs. Perceived risks, barriers and facilitators to using PROMS are presented.

conclusionsHigh and complex symptom burden was found in our IO and SC patient population, reinforcing the need for screening. Whilst wider clinical use of PROMs within the hospital may improve clinical outcomes, the barriers and facilitators identified by Health Care Professionals (HCPs) need to be addressed before implementing PROMs more broadly.

Indexed as

Needs AssessmentPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAustraliaHumansRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesIntegrative oncologyPatient needsPatient-reported outcome measuresPROMsSupportive careSymptom clusters

Identifiers

PMID33594511
OpenAlexW3132224962

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.