Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33879141›Full record

Observational studyBMC health services research2021

Clinicians' knowledge and attitudes towards patient reported outcomes in colorectal cancer care - insights from qualitative interviews.

Nora Tabea Sibert, Christoph Kowalski, Holger Pfaff, Simone Wesselmann, Clara Breidenbach

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Colorectal Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Nora Tabea SibertGerman Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany. sibert@krebsgesellschaft.de.
Christoph KowalskiGerman Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany.
Holger PfaffUniversity of Cologne, Faculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, Eupener Str. 129, 50933, Köln, Germany.
Simone WesselmannGerman Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany.
Clara BreidenbachGerman Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Colorectal NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAttitudeAttitude of Health PersonnelGermanyHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer careEORTCImplementationPatient-reported outcome measuresPatient-reported outcomesRoutine care

Identifiers

PMID33879141
PMCPMC8056693

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.