Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38165502›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024

The use of patient reported outcome measures in oncology clinical practice across Australia and New Zealand.

Ashika D Maharaj, Natasha Roberts, Michael Jefford, Jerome Ng, Claudia Rutherford, Bogda Koczwara

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. PatientEClinicalMedicine · 2025
    Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Ashika D MaharajPublic Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia. a.d.maharaj@tudelft.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4725-613X
Natasha RobertsThe University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, Australia.
Michael JeffordDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jerome NgTe Whatu Ora Counties Manukau, Auckland, New Zealand.
Claudia RutherfordCancer Care Research Unit, Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Bogda KoczwaraFlinders Medical Centre and Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Flinders University · AUMonash University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Queensland · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile there is increasing evidence on the benefits of PROMs in cancer care, the extent of routine collection and use of PROMs in clinical cancer practice across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is unknown. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of PROMs use in routine clinical cancer care in ANZ.

methodsAn online survey was designed and disseminated via professional societies and organisations using a snowball sampling approach to clinical and health administration professionals managing cancer care in ANZ. A poster advertising the study was also circulated on professional social media networks via LinkedIn and Twitter inviting health professionals from ANZ to participate if they were using or intending to use PROMs in clinical cancer practice. Responders opted into the survey via the survey link.

resultsFrom 132 survey views, 91(response rate, 69%) respondents from 56 clinical practices across ANZ agreed to participate in the survey, and of these 55 (n = 55/91, 60%) respondents reported collecting PROMs within their clinical practice. The majority of the respondents were from the State of New South Wales in Australia (n = 21/55, 38%), hospital (n = 35/55, 64%), and a public setting (n = 46/55, 83%). PROMs were collected in all cancer types (n = 21/36, 58%), in all stages of the disease (n = 31/36, 86%), in an adult population (n = 33/36, 92%), applied in English (n = 33/36, 92%), and used to facilitate communication with other reasons (27/36, 75%). A geospatial map analysis provided insights into the variation in PROMs uptake between the two countries and in certain jurisdictions within Australia. This study also highlights the limited resources for PROMs implementation, and a lack of systematic priority driven approach.

conclusionPROM use across Australia and New Zealand seems variable and occurring predominantly in larger metropolitan centres with limited standardisation of approach and implementation. A greater focus on equitable adoption of PROMs in diverse cancer care settings is urgently needed.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAustraliaHumansNew South WalesNew ZealandHealth policyHealth services researchOncologyPatient-reported outcome measuresQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID38165502
PMCPMC10761654
OpenAlexW4390500660

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.