ArticleBMC cancer2022
Knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a comprehensive cancer center.
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07245745 (Prospective Clinical Study Comparing Patient-reported Outcomes Measurements), which is not on this 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.
Prospective Clinical Study Comparing Patient-reported Outcomes Measurements (PROMS) After Adaptive or Conventional Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Voices: Multimethod Study on the Feasibility of Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.JMIR cancer · 2025Trial
- Communicating cancer to children: Strategies and needs of parents with cancer. A qualitative study.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
- Actual use of PROMs in asthma and rhinitis recommended by guidelines in clinical settings: PROMUSE respiratory study.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Article
- Practical considerations towards the collection of patient reported outcome data among hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.The patient · 2026Article
- Assessing Whole-Person Outcomes During Routine Clinical Care: A Rapid Scoping Review.Medical care · 2024Article
- PROACT 2.0: A new open-source tool to improve patient-doctor communication in clinical trials.Tumori · 2024Article
- Understanding providers' perspectives using patient-reported outcomes in a pain management setting: a pilot study.Pain management · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) for patients in home palliative cancer care: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perceptions.BMC palliative care · 2023Article
- Improving the Understanding and Managing of the Quality of Life of Patients With Lung Cancer With Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Routine patient assessment and the use of patient-reported outcomes in specialized palliative care in Japan.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Article
- Editorial: Early palliative care for cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Characterizing Different Multidisciplinary Team Models Implemented Within One Comprehensive Cancer Center.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- Simultaneous care in oncology: Assessment of benefit in relation to symptoms, sex, and age in 753 patients.Frontiers in oncology · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite evidence of the positive impact of routine assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their systematic collection is not widely implemented in cancer care.
aimTo assess the knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards PROMs and electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs) in clinical practice and research and to explore respondent-related factors associated with the above dimensions.
methodAn ad hoc developed online survey was administered to all HCPs employed in clinical activity in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. The survey investigated which PROMs were known and used, as well as HCPs' opinions on the advantages and drawbacks of routine PROM assessment, including electronic assessment (ePROM). Linear and logistic regression models were used for association analyses.
resultsFive Hundred Eleven of nine hundred ninety-two invited HCPs (52%) provided analyzable responses. 68% were women, 46% were nurses and 42% physicians, and 52.5% had > 20 years seniority. The average number of PROMs known was six among 17 proposed. All proved to be under-used (< 28%) except unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales (77 and 36%). Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards PROMs, with strengths outweighing weaknesses (mean overall scores 3.6 and 2.9, respectively, on a 1-5 scale). 67% of respondents preferred electronic collection over paper and pencil. Profession was associated with knowledge and use (physicians reported knowing more PROMs than other professionals) and with a preference for electronic collection (nurses were less likely to prefer the electronic format than physicians). Senior HCPs were slightly more critical about both PROMs and electronic administration.
conclusionsThis survey indicates an acceptable level of knowledge of common PROM tools but low usage in practice. Based on the generally positive attitude of HCPs, routine implementation of ePROMs can be promoted as long as adequate resources and training are provided.
trial registrationNot registered.
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.