Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploration of oncologists’ attitudes toward and perceived value of patient-reported outcomes

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Purpose

To understand oncologists’ attitudes toward patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and to learn how PRO data influence their clinical decision-making.

Methods

Twenty practicing oncologists participated in 1 of 4 semi-structured focus groups.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

ClinRO:

Clinician-reported outcome

ECOG:

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

EORTC:

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer

FACT:

Functional assessment of cancer therapy

HRQL:

Health-related quality of life

PRO:

Patient-reported outcome

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McKee, A. E., Farrell, A. T., Pazdur, R., & Woodcock, J. (2010). The role of the US food and drug administration review process: Clinical trial endpoints in oncology. The Oncologist, 15(suppl 1), 13–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Coons, S. J., Kothari, S., Monz, B. U., & Burke, L. B. (2011). The patient-reported outcome (PRO) consortium: Filling measurement gaps for PRO endpoints to support labeling claims. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 90(5), 743–748.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Muhr, T. (2004) User’s Manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.

  6. 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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Oken, M. M., Creech, F. H., Tormey, D. C., Horton, J., Davis, T. E., McFadden, E. T., et al. (1982). Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5(6), 649–665.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brundage, M., Bass, B., Jolie, R., & Foley, K. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20(7), 979–985.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R., DePetrillo, A. D., Comis, R., & Taylor, K. M. (2001). Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 1–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sloan, J. A., Frost, M. H., Berzon, R., Dueck, A., Guyatt, G., Moinpour, C., et al. (2006). The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: A summary for clinicians. Supportive Care in Cancer, 14(10), 988–998.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schünemann, H. J., Akl, E. A., & Guyatt, G. H. (2006). Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician’s perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Guyatt, G., & Schunemann, H. (2007). How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Quality of Life Research, 16(7), 1097–1105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. December: Guidance for Industry.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Eli Lilly and Company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Global Health Outcomes, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA

    Michael L. Meldahl & Risa P. Hayes

  2. Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK

    Sarah Acaster

Authors
  1. Michael L. Meldahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Acaster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Risa P. Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael L. Meldahl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meldahl, M.L., Acaster, S. & Hayes, R.P. Exploration of oncologists’ attitudes toward and perceived value of patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res 22, 725–731 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0209-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0209-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation