SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Barriers and facilitators for implementing patient-reported outcome measures in oncology practices: an umbrella review.
Synthesis 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. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a patient-reported outcomes registry for patients with brain tumours (BEACON).ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly valued for enhancing patient-centered care and clinical decision-making in oncology. However, routine use remains limited due to implementation challenges. This umbrella review synthesized evidence on barriers and facilitators to PROMs implementation in oncology care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42024539970), we included systematic and scoping reviews published in English up to 25/11/2025 examining PROMs implementation in cancer care. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and conducted qualitative content analysis, categorizing findings within CFIR domains. Review quality was appraised with AMSTAR 2.
resultsEighteen reviews (2004–2024) were included. Most barriers and facilitators (n = 34) were mapped to Innovation Characteristics (i.e. features related to the intervention). Key barriers included limited perceived clinical value of PROMs and increased patient burden. Inner Setting (i.e. the context within which the implementation occurs) challenges included poor integration with electronic health records and workflow disruptions, while facilitators encompassed alignment with clinical guidelines and staff training. At the Individual level (i.e. attributes related to individuals involved), limited provider knowledge and low patient e-health literacy were noted.
conclusionSuccessful PROMs implementation requires raising awareness of their clinical value, seamless integration with health records, workflow optimization, and adequate staff training. Patient support should target e-health literacy and equitable access to digital tools. The overall low quality of existing reviews underscores the need for more rigorous evidence on implementation in oncology.
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.