Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39566946›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Patient Reported Outcome Measures in cancer care: a hybrid effectiveness-Implementation trial to optimise Symptom control and health service Experience (PROMISE)-protocol for a randomised controlled trial of electronic self-reporting of symptoms versus usual care during and following treatment in patients with cancer.

Penelope M Webb, Amy Brown, Bena Brown, Louisa G Collins, Fiona Crawford Williams, Kerrie Doupain, Melissa Eastgate, Vicki Fennelly, Afaf Girgis, Gunter Hartel and 16 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

26 authors.

Penelope M WebbPopulation Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Penny.Webb@qimrberghofer.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0733-5930
Amy BrownTownsville University Hospital, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Bena BrownSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Louisa G CollinsPopulation Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Fiona Crawford WilliamsCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Kerrie DoupainDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
Melissa EastgateCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Vicki FennellyPopulation Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Afaf GirgisSouth West Sydney Clinical Campuses, UNSW Medicine & Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4101-4006
Gunter HartelPopulation Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Rahul LadwaDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
Karen MartinPopulation Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Robert MasonGold Coast University Hospital, Southport, Queensland, Australia.
Peter McGuireCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Elizabeth MillerDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
Suzanne O'BrienPopulation Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Rebecca PackerSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Mark B PinkhamDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
Sabe SabesanTownsville University Hospital, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Jasotha SanmugarajahGold Coast University Hospital, Southport, Queensland, Australia.
Georgia SlappTownsville University Hospital, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Doreen TapsallDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
Jeanie WhiteGold Coast University Hospital, Southport, Queensland, Australia.
Laurelie R WishartDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
David WyldCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Raymond J ChanDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0248-7046

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRoutine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has the potential to inform and improve cancer care. It is now feasible for patients to complete PROMs electronically (ePROMs) providing information about their current levels of symptoms, side effects of treatment and other concerns. PROM scores can be tracked over time allowing more timely identification of problems and more appropriate intervention. Studies have reported clear benefits in patient-clinician communication when PROMs are used and trials in the USA and France found patients randomised to complete regular ePROMs reported better health-related quality of life, had fewer unplanned hospital visits and, importantly, significantly better survival than those randomised to usual care. However, information about the effects on health outcomes and, particularly, the cost-effectiveness of incorporating this information into practice is limited. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PROMISE (Patient Reported Outcome Measures in cancer care: a hybrid effectiveness-Implementation trial to optimise Symptom control and health service Experience) is a multicentre, randomised hybrid effectiveness/implementation trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using ePROMs in routine cancer care to improve patient outcomes. Participants (target sample=572; randomised 1:1 to intervention and control) are adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with a solid cancer and starting treatment at one of the four study hospitals. The primary outcomes are unplanned hospital presentations and physical/functional well-being at 6 months. We hypothesise that, compared with usual care, patients randomised to use an ePROM tool will have fewer unplanned hospital presentations, report better health-related quality of life and greater satisfaction with their care and that the ePROM tool will be cost-effective. We will also assess implementation and process outcomes consistent with the RE-AIM (Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance) Framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the Metro South Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/2020/QMS/67441). Participants provide written informed consent, including consent for record linkage, prior to completing the baseline questionnaire. Study results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences and clinical meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620001290987.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisNeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeSelf ReportFemaleHumansMaleMulticenter Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdult oncologyImplementation SciencePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trial

Identifiers

PMID39566946
PMCPMC11580250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.