Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.

» Andere revante producten voor Scalda studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Schaf de BSL Academy aan: 

BSL Academy mbo AG

Eenmaal aangeschaft kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met Jan van der Velden.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

20-09-2024

Moving beyond barriers: a mixed-method study to develop evidence-based strategies to improve implementation of PROMs in clinical oncology care

Auteurs: Eva Boomstra, Iris Walraven, Iris M.C. van der Ploeg, Michel W.J.M. Wouters, Maaike W. van de Kamp, Richard Dirven, Elaine Albers, Itske Fraterman, Marit Poulissen, Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse, Kelly M. de Ligt

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2025

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to identify feasible, evidence-based strategies to improve the use of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) implemented in clinical oncology practice.

Methods

A mixed-method study involving observations of consultations and semi-structured interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) was conducted to identify facilitators and barriers for using PROMs; barriers and facilitators were structured following the Theoretical Domains Framework. For each barrier, evidence-based improvement strategies were selected using the Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy v1. Subsequently, improvement strategies were ranked on priority and feasibility by an expert panel of HCPs, information technology professionals, and PROMs implementation specialists, creating an implementation improvement strategy.

Results

Ten consultations were observed and 14 interviews conducted. Barriers for implementation included that the electronic health record and PROMs did not align to the individual needs of end users, the HCPs’ hesitance to advice patients about health-related quality-of-life issues, and a lack of consensus on which HCPs were responsible for discussing PROMs with patients. Forty-one improvement strategies were identified, of which 25 remained after ranking. These included: redesigning the PROMs dashboard by including patient management advice, enhancing patient support to complete PROMs, and clarifying HCPs’ responsibilities for discussing PROMs. Strategies currently considered less feasible were: improving user-friendliness of the patient portal due to technical constraints, aligning PROMs assessment frequency with clinical courses, and using baseline PROMs for early identification of vulnerabilities and supportive care needs. These will be studied in future research.

Conclusion

Evidence-based improvement strategies to ensure lasting adoption of PROMs in clinical practice were identified.
vorige artikel Quality of life of women with a screen-detected versus clinically detected breast cancer in the Netherlands: a prospective cohort study
volgende artikel Enhancing quality of life measurement: adapting the ASCOT easy read for older adults accessing social care
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Weldring, T., & Smith, S. M. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights, 6, 61–68.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Gibbons, C. (2021). Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, 10(10).
3.
van Egdom, L. S. E., et al. (2019). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical breast Cancer Care: A systematic review. Value in Healthcare, 22(10), 1197–1226.CrossRef
4.
Cheung, Y. T., et al. (2021). The use of patient–reported outcomes in routine cancer care: Preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners. Supportive Care in Cancer.
5.
Basch, E., et al. (2018). Implementation on of patient-reported outcomes in Routine Medical Care. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 38, 122–134.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Austin, E., et al. (2019). Opportunities and challenges to advance the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes in clinical care: A report from AMIA workshop proceedings. JAMIA Open, 2(4), 407–410.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Nguyen, H., et al. (2021). A review of the barriers to using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 68(2), 186–195.PubMedCrossRef
8.
van der Willik, E. M., et al. (2022). Discussing results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients and healthcare professionals in routine dialysis care: A qualitative study. British Medical Journal Open, 12(11), e067044.
9.
Penedo, F. J., et al. (2022). Implementation and feasibility of an Electronic Health Record-Integrated patient-reported outcomes Symptom and needs monitoring pilot in ambulatory oncology. JCO Oncol Pract, 18(7), e1100–e1113.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Long, C., et al. (2022). Patient-level barriers and facilitators to completion of patient-reported outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 31(6), 1711–1718.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Thestrup Hansen, S., et al. (2020). I am sure that they use my PROM Data for something important. A qualitative study about patients’ experiences from a hematologic outpatient clinic. Cancer Nursing, 43(5), E273–E282.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Roberts, N. A., et al. (2021). The utility of the implementation science framework Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) and the facilitator role for introducing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a medical oncology outpatient department. Quality of Life Research, 30(11), 3063–3071.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Nelson, J. A., et al. (2023). Moving towards patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: Implementation lessons from the BREAST-Q. Quality of Life Research, 32(1), 115–125.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Tam, S., et al. (2023). Real time patient-reported outcome measures in patients with cancer: Early experience within an integrated health system. Cancer Medicine, 12(7), 8860–8870.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Girgis, A., et al. (2022). Stepping into the real world: A mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in routine lung cancer care. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 6(1), 70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Crossnohere, N. L., et al. (2024). A framework for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical care: The PROTEUS-practice guide. Nature Medicine, 30(6), 1519–1520.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Proctor, E. K., Powell, B. J., & McMillen, J. C. (2013). Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science, 8(1), 139.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Stover, A. M., et al. (2021). Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Quality of Life Research, 30(11), 3015–3033.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Michie, S., et al. (2009). Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: The need for a scientific method. Implementation Science, 4(1), 40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
French, S. D., et al. (2012). Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: A systematic approach using the theoretical domains Framework. Implementation Science, 7(1), 38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
22.
Aaronson, N., et al. (2015). User’s guide to implementing patient-reported outcomes Assessment in Clinical Practice. International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL).
23.
van Bommel, A. C. M., et al. (2017). Clinical auditing as an instrument for quality improvement in breast cancer care in the Netherlands: The national NABON breast Cancer audit. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 115(3), 243–249.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Ong, W. L., et al. (2017). A Standard Set of Value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast Cancer the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Initiative. JAMA Oncology, 3(5), 677–685.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Giesinger, J. M., et al. (2020). Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 118, 1–8.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Atkins, L. (2017). A guide to using the theoretical domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implementation Science, 12(1), 77.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Cane, J., et al. (2015). From lists of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to structured hierarchies: Comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCTs. The British Journal of Health Psychology, 20(1), 130–150.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Michie, S., et al. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an International Consensus for the reporting of Behavior Change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46(1), 81–95.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Agbadjé, T. T., et al. (2020). Towards a taxonomy of behavior change techniques for promoting shared decision making. Implementation Science, 15(1), 67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Ng, W., et al. (2023). Applying the behavioural change wheel to guide the implementation of a biopsychosocial approach to musculoskeletal pain care. Front Pain Res (Lausanne), 4, 1169178.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Haley, J. A., Rhind, D. J. A., & Maidment, D. W. (2023). Applying the behaviour change wheel to assess the theoretical underpinning of a novel smartphone application to increase physical activity in adults with spinal cord injuries. Mhealth, 9, 10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Munroe, B., et al. (2023). Implementation evaluation of a rapid response system in a regional emergency department: A dual-methods study using the behaviour change wheel. Australian Critical Care, 36(5), 743–753.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Jolliffe, L. (2023). Development of an implementation strategy for routine collection of generic patient reported outcome measures: A qualitative study in multidisciplinary community rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, : pp. 1–10.
34.
Mejdahl, C. T., et al. (2020). Patient-reported outcome measures in the interaction between patient and clinician - a multi-perspective qualitative study. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 4(1), 3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Taylor, B., et al. (2018). Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis. British Medical Journal Open, 8(10), e019993.
36.
Johnson, G. A., & Vindrola-Padros, C. (2017). Rapid qualitative research methods during complex health emergencies: A systematic review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine, 189, 63–75.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Gale, R. C., et al. (2019). Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration. Implementation Science, 14(1), 11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Kwok, E. Y. L., Moodie, S. T. F., & Cunningham, O. C. J. (2020). Selecting and tailoring implementation interventions: A concept mapping approach. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 385.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Eriksen, J., Bygholm, A., & Bertelsen, P. (2022). The association between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient participation in chronic care: A scoping review. Patient Education and Counseling, 105(7), 1852–1864.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Lai, C. H., et al. (2022). A framework to make PROMs relevant to patients: Qualitative study of communication preferences of PROMs. Quality of Life Research, 31(4), 1093–1103.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Jahagirdar, D., et al. (2012). Using patient reported outcome measures in health services: A qualitative study on including people with low literacy skills and learning disabilities. BMC Health Services Research, 12(1), 431.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Vickers, A. J., Chen, L. Y., & Stetson, P. D. (2020). Interfaces for collecting data from patients: 10 golden rules. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 27(3), 498–500.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Unni, E., et al. (2024). Patient adherence to patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion in clinical care: Current understanding and future recommendations. Quality of Life Research, 33(1), 281–290.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Lyles, C. R., et al. (2019). A Randomized Trial to train vulnerable primary care patients to use a patient Portal. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : Jabfm, 32(2), 248–258.PubMedCrossRef
45.
46.
Simola, S., et al. (2023). Patients’ experiences of a National Patient Portal and its Usability: Cross-sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e45974.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Antonio, M. G., Petrovskaya, O., & Lau, F. (2019). Is research on patient portals attuned to health equity? A scoping review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 26(8–9), 871–883.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Goedhart, N. S. (2021). Persistent inequitable design and implementation of patient portals for users at the margins. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(2), 276–283.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Calvert, M. J., et al. (2022). Patient reported outcome assessment must be inclusive and equitable. Nature Medicine, 28(6), 1120–1124.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Lopez, C. J., et al. (2023). Implementation of electronic prospective surveillance models in cancer care: A scoping review. Implementation Science, 18(1), 11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Duman-Lubberding, S., et al. (2017). Durable usage of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice to monitor health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 25(12), 3775–3783.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Boyce, M. B., Browne, J. P., & Greenhalgh, J. (2014). The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. Bmj Quality & Safety, 23(6), 508–518.CrossRef
53.
Anatchkova, M., et al. (2018). Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: Need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2(1), 64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
van der Horst, D. E. M., et al. (2022). Optimizing the use of patients’ individual outcome information – development and usability tests of a chronic kidney Disease dashboard. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 166, 104838.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Albers, E. A. C. (2022). Visualization formats of Patient-Reported Outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes 2022. 6(18).
56.
Fu, J. B., Stout, N. L., & Egleston, B. L. (2022). The critical need to implement and utilize patient-reported measures of function in cancer care delivery. Cancer, 128(17), 3155–3157.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Holch, P., et al. (2017). Development of an integrated electronic platform for patient self-report and management of adverse events during cancer treatment. Annals of Oncology, 28(9), 2305–2311.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
59.
McHugh, S., et al. (2022). Examining the complementarity between the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies and the behaviour change technique taxonomy: A qualitative analysis. Implementation Science, 17(1), 56.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Moving beyond barriers: a mixed-method study to develop evidence-based strategies to improve implementation of PROMs in clinical oncology care
Auteurs
Eva Boomstra
Iris Walraven
Iris M.C. van der Ploeg
Michel W.J.M. Wouters
Maaike W. van de Kamp
Richard Dirven
Elaine Albers
Itske Fraterman
Marit Poulissen
Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse
Kelly M. de Ligt
Publicatiedatum
20-09-2024
Uitgeverij
Springer New York
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2025
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03787-w

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2025

Norms for the EQ-5D-5L among the general adult population in Alberta, Canada

  • Open Access

Development of an ultra-short measure of eight domains of health-related quality of life for research and clinical care: the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system® PROMIS®-16 profile

  • Open Access

He/She/They - gender inclusivity in developing and using health-related questionnaires: a scoping review

  • Open Access
  • Review

Leah M. McClimans: Patient-Centered Measurement: Ethics, Epistemology, and Dialogue in Contemporary Medicine

  • Book Review

Conceptualizing meaningful between-group difference in change over time: a demonstration of possible viewpoints

  • Commentary

Correction: Development of an ultra-short measure of eight domains of health-related quality of life for research and clinical care: the patient-reported outcomes measurement information systemⓇ PROMISⓇ-16 profile

  • Open Access
  • Correction