Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
To understand oncologists’ attitudes toward patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and to learn how PRO data influence their clinical decision-making.
Twenty practicing oncologists participated in 1 of 4 semi-structured focus groups.
Most oncologists had no experience with PRO measures, but were able to identify several concepts appropriate for patient-reported assessment. Participants agreed that clinical measures such as performance status were more meaningful to them, but acknowledged that PRO measures were more appropriate for assessing patient symptoms and treatment response. All oncologists believed that clinical efficacy and toxicity data were of primary importance, but that PROs become increasingly important when multiple treatments are available, in advanced or incurable disease, and in palliative care. Several issues prevented oncologists from being able to draw meaningful conclusions from PRO data: lack of familiarity with PRO measures, being presented with too much data to process, lack of clarity around a meaningful change in PRO measure scores, and lack of standardization in the use of PRO measures.
Oncologists indicated that PRO data are most influential in advanced or incurable disease and in palliative care. Improving the interpretability of PRO measures could increase the usefulness of PRO data in treatment decision-making.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. F. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: A review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 57(5), 278–300. CrossRef
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Muhr, T. (2004) User’s Manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.
Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., et al. (1993). The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579. PubMed
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376. PubMedCrossRef
Karnofsky, D. A., & Burchenal, J. H. (1949). The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In C. M. MacLeod (Ed.), Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents (pp. 191–205). New York: Columbia University Press.
Osoba, D., Bezjak, A., Brundage, M., Zee, B., Tu, D., Pater, J., et al. (2005). Analysis and interpretation of health-related quality-of-life data from clinical trials: basic approach of The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. European Journal of Cancer, 41(2), 280–287. PubMedCrossRef
US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. December: Guidance for Industry.
- Exploration of oncologists’ attitudes toward and perceived value of patient-reported outcomes
Michael L. Meldahl
Risa P. Hayes
- Springer Netherlands