scholarly journals An assessment of the use of patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in cancers of the pelvic abdominal cavity: identifying oncologic benefit and an evidence-practice gap in routine clinical practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miss Charlotte L. Moss ◽  
Ajay Aggarwal ◽  
Asad Qureshi ◽  
Benjamin Taylor ◽  
Teresa Guerrero-Urbano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Abdominal Cavity ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Outcome Measurements ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Cancer Setting

Abstract Background Patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are emerging as an important component of patient management in the cancer setting, providing broad perspectives on patients’ quality of life and experience. The use of PROMs is, however, generally limited to the context of randomised control trials, as healthcare services are challenged to sustain high quality of care whilst facing increasing demand and financial shortfalls. We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify any oncological benefit of using PROMs and investigate the wider impact on patient experience, in cancers of the pelvic abdominal cavity specifically. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE (Pubmed) and Ovid Gateway (Embase and Ovid) until April 2020. Studies investigating the oncological outcomes of PROMs were deemed suitable for inclusion. Results A total of 21 studies were included from 2167 screened articles. Various domains of quality of life (QoL) were identified as potential prognosticators for oncologic outcomes in cancers of the pelvic abdominal cavity, independent of other clinicopathological features of disease: 3 studies identified global QoL as a prognostic factor, 6 studies identified physical and role functioning, and 2 studies highlighted fatigue. In addition to improved outcomes, a number of included studies also reported that the use of PROMs enhanced both patient-clinician communication and patient satisfaction with care in the clinical setting. Conclusions This review highlights the necessity of routine collection of PROMs within the pelvic abdominal cancer setting to improve patient quality of life and outcomes.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Pediatric Non-Malignant Hematology: A Systematic Review

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2180-2180
Author(s):  
Robert J Klaassen ◽  
Julia Y. Kinahan ◽  
Johann M. I. Graham ◽  
Yamilée V. Hébert ◽  
Katie O'Hearn
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Clinical Environment ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Disease Specific

Introduction: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires completed by patients or caregivers without interpretation by healthcare professionals. As such, they allow patient concerns about a variety of healthcare issues to be identified and addressed in an efficient and actionable manner. PROMs can be generic, with questions relevant to multiple disease groups or disease-specific, with questions targeting the symptoms, limitations, and feelings common to the disease group. This systematic review identified generic and disease-specific PROMs for monitoring symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in 4 pediatric non-malignant hematologic disease groups: thalassemia, hemophilia, immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), and sickle cell disease (SCD). Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, HaPI, CINAHL, and PsycTESTS) were searched to identify publications that either validated or used PROMs as an outcome measure in the four disease groups. Articles were excluded when <30% of the population was pediatric (<18 years), when the study setting was inpatient, when the tool had not been validated, or when the article did not report the use of a PROM for monitoring symptoms or HRQoL. Notably, hemophilia records published prior to 2016 were not screened as a systematic review by Limperg et al. (2017) identified validated PROMs in the pediatric hemophilia population and was used to include relevant articles. Results: The search identified 1176 unique records, with 902 records remaining for title and abstract screening after removal of 274 hemophilia articles published prior to the systematic review. Including hemophilia records identified from the 2017 review, 217 articles met inclusion criteria incorporating 107 generic and 20 disease-specific PROMs. Of the generic tools, the most frequent categories identified include psychological well-being (26 tools), general quality of life (19 tools), and family impact (19 tools). The most frequently used tool was the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales (66 studies), appearing 33 times in SCD, 25 times in thalassemia, 5 times in ITP, and 3 times in hemophilia. Other commonly used generic tools include the Short Form Health Survey, Child Health Questionnaire, PROMIS Health Measures, and Child Behaviour Checklist (Table). Disease-specific tools identified in the review include the PedsQL SCD Module, Kids ITP Tool, Haemo-QoL, CHO-KLAT, and TranQol (Table). In addition, 10 studies reported on pain diaries and 9 of these studies were SCD focused, the other being hemophilia focused. Conclusion: This systematic review identified several generic and disease-specific PROMs that have been used in pediatric non-malignant hematology. Although generic tools have been used more frequently, many disease-specific tools have been validated and are available for use in the clinical environment. We are currently conducting focus groups with patients, parents, and clinicians to determine the optimal choice of tools for monitoring symptoms and HRQoL in the pediatric non-malignant clinical environment. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals How are we measuring health-related quality of life in patients with a Barrett Esophagus? A systematic review on patient-reported outcome measurements

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirjam C. M. van der Ende-van Loon ◽  
A. Stoker ◽  
P. T. Nieuwkerk ◽  
W. L. Curvers ◽  
E. J. Schoon
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

Abstract Purpose Barrett esophagus (BE) is associated with a significant decrease of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Too often, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are applied without considering what they measure and for which purposes they are suitable. With this systematic review, we provide researchers and physicians with an overview of all the instruments previously used for measuring HRQoL in BE patients and which PROMs are most appropriate from the patient’s perspective. Methods A comprehensive search was performed to identify all PROMs used for measuring HRQoL in BE patients, to identify factors influencing HRQoL according to BE patients, and to evaluate each PROM from a patients’ perspective. Results Among the 27 studies, a total of 32 different HRQoL instruments were identified. None of these instruments were designed or validated for use in BE patients. Four qualitative studies were identified exploring factors influencing HRQoL in the perceptions of BE patients. These factors included fear of cancer, anxiety, trust in physician, sense of control, uncertainty, worry, burden of endoscopy, knowledge and understanding, gastrointestinal symptoms, sleeping difficulties, diet and lifestyle, use of medication, and support of family and friends. Conclusion None of the quantitative studies measuring HRQoL in BE patients sufficiently reflected the perceptions of HRQoL in BE patients. Only gastrointestinal symptoms and anxiety were addressed in the majority of the studies. For the selection of PROMs, we encourage physicians and researchers measuring HRQoL to choose their PROMs from a patient perspective and not strictly based on health professionals’ definitions of what is relevant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document