Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38404931›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2024

Patient Reported Outcome Measurement (PROM) under real-life conditions of non-curable cancer outpatients with the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) and NCCN-Distress Thermometer - A mixed methods study.

Eileen Ratzel, Ina Maria Pretzell, Thomas Kindler, Martin Weber, Christina Gerlach

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Observational
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eileen RatzelInterdisciplinary Department of Palliative Care, III. Department of Medicine, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, Geb. 407, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Ina Maria PretzellUniversity Cancer Center Mainz (UCT Mainz), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, Germany.
Thomas KindlerUniversity Cancer Center Mainz (UCT Mainz), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, Germany.
Martin WeberInterdisciplinary Department of Palliative Care, III. Department of Medicine, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, Geb. 407, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Christina GerlachInterdisciplinary Department of Palliative Care, III. Department of Medicine, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, Geb. 407, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUniversity Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Prospective cohort study to test the real-life feasibility of longitudinal patient-reported outcome measurement PROM (Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale IPOS, and NCCN Distress Thermometer DT) required for outpatients with non-curable lung or prostate cancer in comprehensive cancer centers. Methods: Assessment with paper-based IPOS and DT was observed for 15 months. We analyzed response to patients' distress (requests for supportive and palliative services) following PROM. Focus groups to comprehensively explore the user experience of patients, informal caregivers and health care professionals (HCP) supplemented the analysis. Results: Ninety-seven percent (125/129) of the patients received a questionnaire once, but quarterly assessment as recommended by certification committees was achieved only in 50% and 31% of prostate and lung cancer patients. Although both instruments were well accepted, only IPOS showed a high content validity, because some patients had difficulties in understanding the DT. Patients felt comfortable with completing the PROM, and HCP found PROM helped to structure the patient encounter. Due to organizational deficiencies in the handling of the instruments and operationalization of reactions to identified distress, the referrals to supportive and palliative services were rare. Conclusion: To facilitate consequences from PROM it should be a standardized intervention rather than assessment alone. Innovation: The patient perspective improves the implementation of PROM under real-life clinical conditions.

Indexed as

Distress thermometerIntegrated palliative care outcome scale (IPOS)Palliative carePatient reported outcome measurementQuality of lifeScreening

Identifiers

PMID38404931
PMCPMC10883829
OpenAlexW4391743964

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.