Dataset Information

Effects of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes on patient health outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aims to investigate the potential benefits of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinical practice for patients undergoing active anticancer treatment.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials involving cancer patients undergoing active anticancer treatment, spanning various cancer types and stages. The review covered four electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) up to September 2022. Key inclusion criteria focused on the incorporation of PROs as a routine intervention. Bias assessment followed the Cochrane collaboration's criteria, while the synthesis of results utilized effect size measurements (Cohen's d). The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Results

Out of 1549 initially screened records, 16 published randomized controlled trials encompassing 5300 patients met the inclusion criteria. The interventions involved 18 different PROs measurements, with prominent tools being EORTC QLQ-C30 (utilized in four trials) and PRO-CTCAE (utilized in four trials). Measured endpoints included overall quality of life (12 trials), physical health (11 trials), mental health (7 trials), and social health (5 trials). Overall, the study revealed a limited number of statistically significant findings, with predominantly small to moderate effect sizes associated with the interventions.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that the routine integration of PROs into clinical practice does not yield definitive advantages in terms of PROs. It is apparent that further efforts are necessary to ascertain the impact of these interventions on patient health.

Systematic review registration

The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022365456).

SUBMITTER: Li D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10597759 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes on patient health outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review.

Li Danyu D Huang Qingmei Q Zhang Wen W Yuan Changrong C Wu Fulei F

Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing 20230823 11

<h4>Objective</h4>This study aims to investigate the potential benefits of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinical practice for patients undergoing active anticancer treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials involving cancer patients undergoing active anticancer treatment, spanning various cancer types and stages. The review covered four electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) u ...[more]

PMID: 37885765

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWhile there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations.Methods and analysisAn electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided.Ethics and disseminationGiven that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research.Prospero registration numberCRD42018099160.

Project description:ImportanceThe collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has garnered intense interest, but dissemination of PRO programs has been limited, as have analyses of the factors associated with successful programs.ObjectiveTo identify factors associated with improving PRO collection rates within a large health care system using a centralized PRO infrastructure.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included 205 medical and surgical clinics in the Partners Healthcare system in Massachusetts that implemented a PRO program between March 15, 2014, and December 31, 2018, using a standardized centralized infrastructure. Data were analyzed from March to April 2019.ExposuresRelevant clinical characteristics were recorded for each clinic launching a PRO program.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the mean PRO collection rate during each clinic's most recent 6 months of collection prior to January 2019. Data were analyzed using a linear regression model with the 6-month PRO collection rate as the dependent variable and clinic characteristics as independent variables. Secondary analysis used a logistic regression model to assess clinical factors associated with successful clinics, defined as those that collected PROs at a rate greater than 50%.ResultsBetween March 2014 and December 2018, 205 Partners Healthcare clinics were available for analysis, and 4 061 205 PRO measures from 745 028 encounters were collected. Among these, 103 clinics (50.2%) collected at a rate greater than 50%. Increased collection rates were associated with more than 50% of physicians in a clinic trained on PROs (change, 19.6% [95% CI, 9.9%-29.4%]; P < .001), routine administrative oversight of collection rates (change, 16.0% [95% CI, 6.6%-25.5%]; P = .001), previous collection of PROs on paper (change, 12.5% [95% CI, 4.7%-20.3%]; P = .002), presence of a clinical champion (change, 11.2% [95% CI, 2.5%-20.0%]; P = .01) and payer incentive (change, 10.5% [95% CI, 2.0%-18.9%]; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that training physicians on the use of PROs, administrative surveillance of collection rates, and the presence of a local clinical champion may be promising interventions for increasing PRO collection. Clinics that have previously collected PROs may have greater success in increasing collections. Payer incentive for collection was associated with improved collections, but not associated with successful programs.

Dataset Information

Effects of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes on patient health outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

Effects of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes on patient health outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets