4.6 Review

Patient Reported Outcomes Have Arrived: A Practical Overview for Clinicians in Using Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology

Journal

MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
Volume 94, Issue 11, Pages 2291-2301

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.04.005

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Robert and Patricia Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic
  2. Research and Education Program Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin
  3. Clinical and Translational Science Award program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [KL2TR001438]
  4. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [K23HL141445]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ensuring that the patient's voice is routinely incorporated in all aspects of health care in oncology is essential to provide quality care. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are standardized measures that are used to obtain the patient's perspective and are increasingly used in all aspects of health care to ensure optimal delivery of patient-centered care. The US Food and Drug Administration encourages that PROs be used in studies for label indications. There are no uniform standardized methods to use PROs nor is there consensus on which PROs are best for regulatory approval, comparative effectiveness research, toxicity assessment, health-related quality of life, or symptom monitoring. For this review, we conducted a literature search using PubMed and Google Scholar, and herein summarize the evidence related to the use of PROs in clinic care and research. Using valid, reliable, and easily interpretable PROs developed in comparable populations will provide the most useful results. Various ways that PROs can be used successfully in oncology have been exemplified in this overview to provide clinicians and researchers practical guidance. (C) 2019 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available