Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinic-based perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a tertiary cancer center

  • Research
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study examines providers’ and clinic staff’s perspectives on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) implementation at an academic medical center.

Methods

An anonymous and voluntary survey was administered to Henry Ford Cancer providers and clinic staff 18 months after PROs program implementation in September 2020, to obtain their feedback on perceived barriers, impact on workflows, and PROs administration frequency in routine cancer care.

Results

A total of 180 providers and 40 clinic staff were invited to complete the survey; 31% and 63% completed the survey, respectively. Approximately 68% of providers reported that electronically integrated PROs scores were either beneficial or somewhat beneficial to their patients, while only 28% of the clinic staff reported that PROs were beneficial or somewhat beneficial to patients. According to the clinic staff, the most common barriers to PROs completion included lack of patients’ awareness of the utility of the program with respect to their care, patients’ health status at check-in, and PROs being offered too frequently.

Conclusion

There is favorable acceptance of the PROs program by providers, but clinic staff found it less favorable. Interventions to address barriers and improve program engagement are needed to ensure broad adoption of PROs in oncology practice.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Tew M et al (2020) Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): can they be used to guide patient-centered care and optimize outcomes in total knee replacement? Qual Life Res 29(12):3273–3283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Moss MCL et al (2021) 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. Health Qual Life Outcomes 19(1):20

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Howell D et al (2015) Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol 26(9):1846–1858

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Basch E et al (2016) Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 34(6):557–565

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wohlfahrt P et al (2020) Provider perspectives on the feasibility and utility of routine patient-reported outcomes assessment in heart failure: a qualitative analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 9(2):e013047

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Tam S et al Real time patient-reported outcome measures in patients with cancer: early experience within an integrated health system. Cancer Med 12(7):8860–8870

  7. Chen M et al (2022) Barriers and opportunities for patient-reported outcome implementation: a national pediatrician survey in the United States. Children (Basel) 9(2):185

  8. Zhang R et al (2019) Provider perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record. JAMIA Open 2(1):73–80

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Rotenstein LS et al (2017) Implementing patient-reported outcome surveys as part of routine care: lessons from an academic radiation oncology department. J Am Med Inform Assoc 24(5):964–968

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Woodward EN et al (2019) The health equity implementation framework: proposal and preliminary study of hepatitis C virus treatment. Implement Sci 14(1):26

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Mou D et al (2022) Primary care physician’s (PCP) perceived value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: a mixed methods study. BMJ Qual Saf 31(3):221–229

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cheung YT et al (2022) The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners. Support Care Cancer 30(2):1427–1439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Parekh AD, Bates JE, Amdur RJ (2020) Response rate and nonresponse bias in oncology survey studies. Am J Clin Oncol 43(4):229–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hutchinson MK, Sutherland MA (2019) Conducting surveys with multidisciplinary health care providers: current challenges and creative approaches to sampling, recruitment, and data collection. Res Nurs Health 42(6):458–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences pilot grant (MPIs: Samantha Tam and Kelly Hirko).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, One Ford Place, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

    Nada Al-Antary & Eric Adjei Boakye

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Kelly A. Hirko & Eric Adjei Boakye

  3. Center for Health Policy & Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA

    Farah Elsiss

  4. Henry Ford Cancer, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA

    Theresa Zatirka & Michael Ryan

  5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA

    Benjamin Movsas

  6. Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA

    Steven S. Chang, Eric Adjei Boakye & Samantha H. Tam

Authors
  1. Nada Al-Antary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelly A. Hirko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Farah Elsiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Theresa Zatirka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Benjamin Movsas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Steven S. Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Eric Adjei Boakye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Samantha H. Tam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.A.H. and S.H.T. conceptualized the study. N.A., F.E., and E.A.B. performed the analysis. N.A., F.E., E.A.B., and S.H.T. drafted the main manuscript text. K.A.H., T.Z., M.R., B.M., S.C., and E.A.B. revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors participated in the interpretation of the data. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Adjei Boakye.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Dr. Benjamin Movsas received research support from Varian and ViewRay, and Philips as well as Honoraria from Varian outside of the submitted work. All other authors had no conflict of interests.

Ethics approval

All study methodology was approved by the Henry Ford Health Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Benjamin Movsas received research support from Varian and ViewRay, and Philips as well as Honoraria from Varian outside of the submitted work. All other authors had no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Eric Adjei Boakye and Samantha H. Tam contributed equally and share senior authorship.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Antary, N., Hirko, K.A., Elsiss, F. et al. Clinic-based perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a tertiary cancer center. Support Care Cancer 32, 148 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08353-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08353-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation