ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in oncology practice: a communication-centered qualitative study on patient and healthcare professional perspectives.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in oncology to support patient-centered care, yet their implementation in routine practice remains inconsistent. Using a communication-centered perspective which conceptualizes PROMs implementation as a process of meaning exchange between patients, clinicians, and implementation staff, this study examined PROMs implementation as a multi-stage process and explored how it unfolds in real-life oncology care, drawing on both patient and healthcare professional perspectives.
methodsA qualitative interview study was conducted in the Netherlands with patients with cancer (n = 10) and healthcare professionals and implementation staff in oncology care (n = 7). Semi-structured interviews were informed by a communication-centered framework conceptualizing PROMs implementation as a multi-stage process. Data were analyzed using hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis.
resultsSix interrelated stages of PROMs implementation were identified: (1) selecting and organizing PROMs use, (2) establishing purpose and motivation, (3) experiencing PROMs as a task, (4) making sense of results together, (5) applying PROMs information in care, and (6) evaluating and improving PROMs implementation. Findings showed that experiences at different stages were interconnected: processes occurring earlier in the implementation influence how PROMs were later understood, discussed, and used in care. Across roles, participants recognized PROMs' potential to support communication beyond clinical indicators, while also describing frustration when PROMs were collected but not meaningfully used. Patient and clinician engagement influenced one another across stages, reflecting the reciprocal nature of PROMs as a communication tool.
conclusionPROMs implementation should be viewed as an interdependent, sequential process. Improving connections between stages is essential to realizing PROMs' communicative and patient-centered potential in oncology care. Practical strategies such as personalizing PROMs invitations, completing the feedback loop between PROMs results and patients, and integrating supportive tools for clinicians can help translate PROMs data into meaningful patient-centered dialogue.
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.