Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33975586›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Could existing infrastructure for using patient-reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer?

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Clara BreidenbachGerman Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany. breidenbach@krebsgesellschaft.de.
Christoph KowalskiGerman Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany.
Simone WesselmannGerman Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany.
Nora Tabea SibertGerman Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany.
German Cancer Society · DE

Funding

Innovationsfond beim Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (G-BA) 01VSF17040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been increasing interest in integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine oncological practice. To date, however, PROs have rarely been implemented in Germany. Currently, PROs are being used as performance measures in colorectal cancer centers in Germany. This content analysis identified factors that may inhibit or facilitate the additional use of PROMs for individual patient management.

methodsThe analysis follows an exploratory approach. Out of 103 centers that participated in a multicentric PRO quality management and benchmarking program in Germany, twelve oncological health-care providers from eight certified colorectal cancer centers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviewees were clinicians (physicians, nurses, psycho-oncologist and physician assistant) who care for colorectal cancer patients. This analysis evaluated whether and how PROs that are primarily collected for quality management/benchmarking reasons could also be used for the management of individual patients. The data was analyzed using a content-analysis approach.

resultsThe interviewees were not using PRO in their routine clinical work, but they recognized its added value and pointed out potential example uses. Identified inhibiting factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work were effortful access to PRO reports, lacking coordinating structures, time delays and time points of measurements as well as redundancy with other instruments. Facilitating factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work that were identified included access via electronic patient records, implementation of coordinating structures for PRO processes in the center, clear PRO reports that are easy to interpret, and measurements at relevant time points. DISCUSSION: Clinicians had quite a positive attitude toward PROs and recognized their added value. Inhibiting and facilitating factors of an organizational and technical nature were identified.

conclusionsThese findings indicate how PROs used for quality management purposes may also be used for the management of individual patients. Therefore, existing structures and processes in the certified colorectal cancer centers, as well as lessons learned from the literature on the implementation of PROs monitoring individual patients need to be taken into account.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsQuality Indicators, Health CareGermanyHumansMedical OncologyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresBarriersEORTCFacilitating factorsFacilitatorsImplementationInhibiting factorsIntegrationPatient‐reported outcome measuresPatient‐reported outcomesRoutine care

Identifiers

PMID33975586
PMCPMC8111716
OpenAlexW3161394129

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.