Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41563597›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026

Stakeholder perspectives on the use of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal cancer survivorship care in general practice: qualitative study using interviews.

Bora Kim, Marguerite Tracy, Cheri Ostroff, Janani Mahadeva, Julie Marker, Kate White, Simon Willcock, Claudia Rutherford

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Bora KimThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, and Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. bora.kim@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7843-5106
Marguerite TracyFaculty of Medicine and Health, General Practice Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Cheri OstroffConsumer representative, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Janani MahadevaFaculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie Medical School, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Julie MarkerConsumer representative, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Kate WhiteThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, and Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Simon WillcockFaculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie Medical School, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Claudia RutherfordThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, and Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore perspectives of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors and general practitioners (GPs) regarding the potential use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in survivorship care.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews with CRC survivors and GPs to explore their opinions on the potential utility, feasibility, and preferred method of PROMs utilization in their care/clinical practice. Thematic analysis was conducted using a qualitative descriptive approach.

resultsThree themes emerged from 13 CRC survivor interviews:(1) potential of PROMs as tools for revealing and monitoring hidden CRC sequelae, (2) benefits and drawbacks to be weighed when using PROMs in CRC survivorship care, and (3) practical strategies to enhance the utility of PROMs in CRC survivorship care. Two themes emerged from four GP interviews:(1) current uses of PROM in general practice may indicate potential applications in CRC survivorship care, and (2) implementation of PROMs in CRC survivorship care needs to consider resource-limited general practice environments. CRC survivors had positive views about using PROMs in their care, believing they could be a valuable tool to enhance monitoring of treatment sequelae/and communication with their GP. GPs also acknowledged the potential utility but emphasized that for CRC-specific PROMs to be implemented, they first needed to demonstrate tangible improvements to the current way that CRC treatment sequelae were monitored and managed, considering already resource-limited Australian general practice settings.

conclusionsFuture research assessing the feasibility of integrating CRC-specific PROMs into general practice settings requires a particular focus on the resource implications within these settings

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCancer SurvivorsColorectal NeoplasmsGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurvivorshipAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchCancer survivorshipColorectal cancerGeneral practitionerPatient-reported outcomesPrimary health careSequelae

Identifiers

PMID41563597
PMCPMC12823719

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.