Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35107792›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2022

Priority recommendations for the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical cancer care: a Delphi study.

C Mazariego, M Jefford, R J Chan, N Roberts, L Millar, A Anazodo, S Hayes, B Brown, C Saunders, K Webber and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Patient-reported outcome measurement implementation in cancer survivors: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Implementing cancer symptom management interventions utilizing patient-reported outcomes: a pre-implementation evaluation of barriers and facilitators.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Customizing workflows for electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring using the action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT) framework.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. PatientEClinicalMedicine · 2025
    Review
  12. The Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cirrhosis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

C MazariegoThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, 153 Dowling street, Woolloomooloo, NSW, 2011, Australia. carolynma@nswcc.org.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3965-4960
M JeffordDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
R J ChanCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
N RobertsMetro North Health Service, Herston, QLD, Australia.
L MillarMedical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
A AnazodoSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Sydney, Australia.
S HayesConsumer representative, Patients First: The Continuous Improvement in Care-Cancer Project, Perth, Australia.
B BrownWellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Australia.
C SaundersMedical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
K WebberSchool of Medical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Vic, Australia.
J VardySydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
A GirgisIngham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.
B KoczwaraDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
COSA PRO Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to develop priority recommendations for the service level implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical cancer care.

methodsDevelopment of draft guidance statements was informed by a literature review, the Knowledge to Action (KTA) implementation framework, and discussion with PRO experts and cancer survivors. A two-round modified Delphi survey with key stakeholders including cancer survivors, clinical and research experts, and Information Technology specialists was undertaken. Round 1 rated the importance of the statements and round 2 ranked statements in order of priority.

resultsRound 1 was completed by 70 participants with round 2 completed by 45 participants. Forty-seven statements were rated in round 2. In round 1, the highest agreement items (>90% agreement) included those that focused on the formation of strong stakeholder partnerships, ensuring ongoing communication within these partnerships, and the use of PROs for improvement and guidance in clinical care. Items ranked as the highest priorities in round 2 included assessment of current staff capabilities and service requirements, mapping of workflows and processes to enable collection, and using collected PROs to guide improved health outcomes.

conclusionsThis stakeholder consultation process has identified key priorities in PRO implementation into clinical cancer care that include clinical relevance, stakeholder engagement, communication, and integration within the existing processes and capabilities. IMPLICATION FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Routine adoption of PRO collection by clinical cancer services requires multiple implementation steps; of highest priority is strong engagement and communication with key stakeholders including cancer survivors.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresDelivery of Health CareDelphi TechniqueHumansStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesHealth servicesImplementationPatient-reported outcomesPROQuality of lifeSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID35107792
PMCPMC8881271

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.