Optimizing Patient Engagement with Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Across the Cancer Continuum: A Qualitative Study.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Palliative medicine reports Pub Date : 2025-06-05 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1089/pmr.2025.0029
Eve Seraphina Qing Yi Low, See Mieng Tan, Grace Meijuan Yang, Yu Ke
{"title":"Optimizing Patient Engagement with Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Across the Cancer Continuum: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Eve Seraphina Qing Yi Low, See Mieng Tan, Grace Meijuan Yang, Yu Ke","doi":"10.1089/pmr.2025.0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) enhance patient-centered care but routine implementation in oncology settings remains challenging. This study seeks to explore patients' experiences with routine PROM integration within a health care setting with employed strategies to maximize uptake and inclusivity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study employing a phenomenological approach was conducted at the National Cancer Centre Singapore. Seven breast cancer patients receiving routine screening using the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DTPL) as part of a larger supportive care program were purposively sampled. Semi-structured interviews explored how implementation strategies influenced patients' experiences with PROM usability, accessibility, and perceived impact. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants perceived the DTPL as a meaningful PROM that validated their emotions but highlighted that presentation formats greatly influenced perceived simplicity of the tool. While multilingual and hybrid formats improved accessibility, digital literacy and cognitive burden remained as barriers. Education pamphlets provided initial awareness, but sustained engagement was impeded by a lack of time, reminders, and a conducive environment. PROMs were most useful during active treatment when symptoms fluctuated, yet frequent completion led to response fatigue. Timely responses to PROMs reinforced engagement, particularly when linked to referrals or symptom management. Some participants felt that formal PROM reviews by oncologists were unnecessary due to time constraints.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Successful PROM implementation requires balancing simplicity, accessibility, and clinical relevance. Embedding PROMs within broader supportive care programs ensures clinical responsiveness and improves patient outcomes in oncology care.</p>","PeriodicalId":74394,"journal":{"name":"Palliative medicine reports","volume":"6 1","pages":"333-341"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12410332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative medicine reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2025.0029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) enhance patient-centered care but routine implementation in oncology settings remains challenging. This study seeks to explore patients' experiences with routine PROM integration within a health care setting with employed strategies to maximize uptake and inclusivity.

Methods: A qualitative study employing a phenomenological approach was conducted at the National Cancer Centre Singapore. Seven breast cancer patients receiving routine screening using the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DTPL) as part of a larger supportive care program were purposively sampled. Semi-structured interviews explored how implementation strategies influenced patients' experiences with PROM usability, accessibility, and perceived impact. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Results: Participants perceived the DTPL as a meaningful PROM that validated their emotions but highlighted that presentation formats greatly influenced perceived simplicity of the tool. While multilingual and hybrid formats improved accessibility, digital literacy and cognitive burden remained as barriers. Education pamphlets provided initial awareness, but sustained engagement was impeded by a lack of time, reminders, and a conducive environment. PROMs were most useful during active treatment when symptoms fluctuated, yet frequent completion led to response fatigue. Timely responses to PROMs reinforced engagement, particularly when linked to referrals or symptom management. Some participants felt that formal PROM reviews by oncologists were unnecessary due to time constraints.

Conclusion: Successful PROM implementation requires balancing simplicity, accessibility, and clinical relevance. Embedding PROMs within broader supportive care programs ensures clinical responsiveness and improves patient outcomes in oncology care.

Abstract Image

优化患者参与患者报告的结果测量跨越癌症连续体:一项定性研究。
背景:患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)增强了以患者为中心的护理,但在肿瘤学环境中的常规实施仍然具有挑战性。本研究旨在探讨患者在医疗保健环境中与常规PROM整合的经验,并采用策略来最大限度地吸收和包容。方法:在新加坡国家癌症中心进行了一项采用现象学方法的定性研究。作为一个更大的支持性护理项目的一部分,我们有目的地抽样了7名接受窘迫温度计和问题清单(DTPL)常规筛查的乳腺癌患者。半结构化访谈探讨了实施策略如何影响PROM可用性、可及性和感知影响的患者体验。数据分析采用基于实施研究综合框架的专题分析。结果:参与者认为DTPL是一个有意义的PROM,验证了他们的情绪,但强调表示格式极大地影响了工具的感知简单性。虽然多语言和混合格式改善了可访问性,但数字素养和认知负担仍然是障碍。教育小册子提供了初步的认识,但由于缺乏时间、提醒和有利的环境,持续的参与受到阻碍。当症状波动时,PROMs在积极治疗期间最有用,但频繁的治疗结束会导致反应疲劳。及时回应PROMs加强了参与,特别是当与转诊或症状管理相关时。一些参与者认为,由于时间限制,肿瘤学家进行正式的PROM审查是不必要的。结论:成功的PROM实施需要平衡简单性、可及性和临床相关性。将PROMs嵌入到更广泛的支持性护理方案中,可确保临床反应能力并改善肿瘤护理的患者预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书