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?
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Providers' perspectives on implementing alert-based patient-reported outcome monitoring for stage IV breast cancer.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Trial
- Quantitative assessment of visual designs for communicating patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer care to patients.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Trial
- From participatory design to clinical routine: new concepts for visualizing patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer care.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- 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
- Leveraging the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to Develop the American College of Rheumatology's Toolkit for Implementation of Rheumatoid Arthritis Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice: A Qualitative Study.Arthritis care & research · 2024Article
- Facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: a systematic review based on the consolidated framework for implementation research.Implementation science communications · 2024Review
- 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
- Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study.JMIR cancer · 2023Review
- Collection and Utilization of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Colorectal Surgery Clinic.The Journal of surgical research · 2022Article
- Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to guide clinical care: recommendations and challenges.The Medical journal of Australia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.