4.2 Article

Preferences of Individuals With Cancer for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Journal

ONCOLOGY NURSING FORUM
Volume 48, Issue 2, Pages 173-183

Publisher

ONCOLOGY NURSING SOC
DOI: 10.1188/21.ONF.173-183

Keywords

patient-reported outcomes; quality of life; symptom burden; patient-centered care

Funding

  1. Hawn Foundation Fund for Education Programs in Pain and Symptom Research
  2. Bayer
  3. Astellas
  4. AstraZeneca
  5. Bristol Myers Squibb
  6. Eli Lilly
  7. Genentech
  8. Merck

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cancer patients value the importance of communicating various aspects of the disease and treatment experience to the oncology team, as well as supporting systematic PRO assessments. They express concerns about the length of PRO questionnaires, the importance of response options available, and willingness to complete PRO measures frequently.
PURPOSE: Symptom monitoring and management using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures improves outcomes for individuals with cancer. The purpose of the current study was to provide a qualitative assessment of preferences of individuals with cancer for PRO measures. PARTICIPANTS & SETTING: 15 patients receiving systemic therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Participants completed three PRO measures. Qualitative interviews were conducted, and content analysis was used to identify relevant themes. FINDINGS: Identified themes were the importance of communicating various aspects of the disease and treatment experience to the oncology team, the importance of systematic PRO assessments, congruence among PRO questionnaires and questions clinicians ask at clinic visits, concerns about the length of PRO questionnaires, the importance of the response options available in PRO questionnaires, and willingness to complete PRO measures frequently. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Oncology nurses are critical facilitators of the systematic use of PRO measures across the cancer care continuum.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available