Salene M W Jones, Erin E Kent, Maxime Caru, Hannah Arem, Youngmee Kim, Lixin Song, Shelby L Langer
{"title":"心理肿瘤学研究中患者报告结果和护理人员报告结果的教育目标。","authors":"Salene M W Jones, Erin E Kent, Maxime Caru, Hannah Arem, Youngmee Kim, Lixin Song, Shelby L Langer","doi":"10.1007/s13187-025-02709-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and caregiver-reported outcomes (CROs) are tools for evaluating behavioral medicine interventions and for bringing the patient voice into observational research. This study aimed to identify barriers to using PROs/CROs in behavioral cancer research and to equitably address those barriers. Forty-nine members of a cancer special interest group from a research society completed surveys in early 2023 about needs related to the use of PROs and CROs. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results. Most participants used PROs (n = 34, 69%) but few frequently used CROs (n = 12, 24%). More than 80% of the sample were familiar with common PRO/CRO properties such as reliability and validity. Participants reported considering a wide variety of population characteristics when using PROs and CROs, including language (n = 31, 70%) and education level (n = 31, 70%). The most common barriers to using PROs/CROs in research were time, funding, and technology with many reflecting potential reasons for inequitable representation of certain groups in research. Webinars were the most preferred educational format (n = 38, 78%) for resources related to PROs/CROs. Many participants encountered barriers to using PROs in research. Creation and dissemination of educational resources to promote equitable use of PROs/CROs across underrepresented groups and overcome common barriers to use of these measurement tools are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Educational Targets for Patient-Reported Outcomes and Caregiver-Reported Outcomes in Psycho-oncology Research.\",\"authors\":\"Salene M W Jones, Erin E Kent, Maxime Caru, Hannah Arem, Youngmee Kim, Lixin Song, Shelby L Langer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13187-025-02709-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and caregiver-reported outcomes (CROs) are tools for evaluating behavioral medicine interventions and for bringing the patient voice into observational research. This study aimed to identify barriers to using PROs/CROs in behavioral cancer research and to equitably address those barriers. Forty-nine members of a cancer special interest group from a research society completed surveys in early 2023 about needs related to the use of PROs and CROs. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results. Most participants used PROs (n = 34, 69%) but few frequently used CROs (n = 12, 24%). More than 80% of the sample were familiar with common PRO/CRO properties such as reliability and validity. Participants reported considering a wide variety of population characteristics when using PROs and CROs, including language (n = 31, 70%) and education level (n = 31, 70%). The most common barriers to using PROs/CROs in research were time, funding, and technology with many reflecting potential reasons for inequitable representation of certain groups in research. Webinars were the most preferred educational format (n = 38, 78%) for resources related to PROs/CROs. Many participants encountered barriers to using PROs in research. Creation and dissemination of educational resources to promote equitable use of PROs/CROs across underrepresented groups and overcome common barriers to use of these measurement tools are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02709-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02709-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Educational Targets for Patient-Reported Outcomes and Caregiver-Reported Outcomes in Psycho-oncology Research.
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and caregiver-reported outcomes (CROs) are tools for evaluating behavioral medicine interventions and for bringing the patient voice into observational research. This study aimed to identify barriers to using PROs/CROs in behavioral cancer research and to equitably address those barriers. Forty-nine members of a cancer special interest group from a research society completed surveys in early 2023 about needs related to the use of PROs and CROs. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results. Most participants used PROs (n = 34, 69%) but few frequently used CROs (n = 12, 24%). More than 80% of the sample were familiar with common PRO/CRO properties such as reliability and validity. Participants reported considering a wide variety of population characteristics when using PROs and CROs, including language (n = 31, 70%) and education level (n = 31, 70%). The most common barriers to using PROs/CROs in research were time, funding, and technology with many reflecting potential reasons for inequitable representation of certain groups in research. Webinars were the most preferred educational format (n = 38, 78%) for resources related to PROs/CROs. Many participants encountered barriers to using PROs in research. Creation and dissemination of educational resources to promote equitable use of PROs/CROs across underrepresented groups and overcome common barriers to use of these measurement tools are warranted.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues.
Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care.
We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts.
Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited.
Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants.
Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.