Observational studyBMC health services research2021
Clinicians' knowledge and attitudes towards patient reported outcomes in colorectal cancer care - insights from qualitative interviews.
Observational study in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Providers' perspectives on implementing alert-based patient-reported outcome monitoring for stage IV breast cancer.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Trial
- Integrating real-time patient-reported outcomes in colorectal cancer care: development and evaluation of a concise clinical scorecard.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- A Survey on the Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Patient-Reported Outcomes Among 527 Nursing Staff in China.Nursing open · 2026Review
- Development of a digitalization concept for assessing patient-reported outcomes in the context of a University Cancer Center - a model for use in clinical routine.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Systematic development of a patient-reported ONCOlogical-ROUTinE-Screening (ONCO-ROUTES) procedure at the University Cancer Center Regensburg.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- German general practitioners' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and how it affected their patient care: A qualitative study.The European journal of general practice · 2023Article
- Functional Results After Nerve-Sparing, Sphincter Preserving Rectal Cancer Surgery: Patient-Reported Outcomes of Sexual and Urinary Dysfunction.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes in Colorectal Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023Review
- Collection and Utilization of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Colorectal Surgery Clinic.The Journal of surgical research · 2022Article
- An implementation study of electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes in inpatient radiation oncology.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Review
- Exploring the use of health and wellbeing measures during pregnancy and the first year following birth in women living with pre-existing long-term conditions: qualitative interviews with women and healthcare professionals.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Could existing infrastructure for using patient-reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer?BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used in cancer care to monitor patients' disease-related symptoms and functional status. However, successful implementation of such instruments is only possible if clinical staff are convinced of the clinical benefits. It is therefore crucial to investigate the attitudes of clinical staff to PROs in routine cancer care.
methodsSemi-structured, guideline-based interviews were held with 12 clinicians working in certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany who are taking part in an observational study on PROs (five surgeons, two oncologists, one psycho-oncologist, two oncological care nurses, one stoma therapist, and one physician assistant) in order to investigate firstly, how clinicians describe PRO instruments ("wording"); and secondly, the clinicians' general attitude toward PROs. A qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz was performed.
resultsThe wording used to describe PROs was not consistent. Statements on attitudes toward PROs were very heterogeneous and were therefore categorized into "(rather) positive" and "(rather) negative." The principal advantages of PROs mentioned by participants included broader, structured knowledge about patients and treatment, as well as relevance for patients. Subcategories for (rather) negative attitudes included statements expressing doubts about the questionnaires and "no need for PROs." DISCUSSION: The clinicians participating mainly expressed fairly positive attitudes toward PROs. However, they had little knowledge about PROs in general and the interviews therefore mainly reflect their expectations and assumptions about them. These initial impressions may be regarded as providing a basis for future implementation strategies and for training of clinicians on how to use PROs in routine cancer care.
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.