Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Oct:13:6-11.
doi: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.05.035. Epub 2016 Jun 16.

Using Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Practice

Sarah A Kelleher  1 , Tamara J Somers  1 , Tracie Locklear  2 , Alexandra D Crosswell  3 , Amy P Abernethy  2
Affiliations

Using Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Practice

Sarah A Kelleher et al. Scand J Pain. 2016 Oct.

Abstract

Background and aims: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being implemented into the care of patients with cancer. The use of a standard set of PROs (e.g., pain) in cancer is becoming established and there is interest in what additional PROs might provide valuable information. The goal of this observational study was to examine how the PROs of self-efficacy for pain and other symptoms assessed at the point of service were associated with pain, symptom severity and distress, and physical and psychosocial functioning in a sample of breast and gastrointestinal patients. We also sought to examine differences in these relationships by cancer type (breast and gastrointestinal) as well as understand differences in self-assessment mode (paper/pencil or electronic tablet).

Methods: 178 patients with breast (n=65) and gastrointestinal cancer (n = 113) completed the Chronic Pain Self Efficacy Scale, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaires. Measures were completed with paper and pencil and electronically using a tablet computer while patients waited for their clinical appointment. Responses from the initial completed questionnaires on both the paper and electronic instruments were analyzed.

Results: Patients' self-efficacy scores for pain and other symptoms correlated positively with pain, symptom severity and distress, and physical and psychosocial functioning; patients with lower levels of self-efficacy reported poorer outcomes and functioning overall. The results were independent of cancer type and mode of assessment. No statistically significant differences were found in the PROs when collected by electronic technology versus paper-pencil mode; patients were very satisfied with using the tablet computer to complete the PRO measures.

Conclusions and implications: Our results suggest that self-efficacy for pain and symptom management may be a beneficial addition to clinic-based PRO assessment batteries for patients with cancer and other chronic diseases. Existing short, validated symptom self-efficacy scales could easily be integrated into clinical practice to help healthcare providers identify patients that might benefit from intervention. Study results also support existing research that suggests electronic approaches are a practical way to collect PRO data, including self-efficacy data, in the clinic. Overall, our data suggest that patients who have particularly low levels of self-efficacy for pain and symptom management may be at risk for higher levels of pain and disability. Thus, if self-efficacy for pain and symptom management were routinely collected at the time of clinical service, psychosocial interventions to improve self-efficacy for pain and symptom management, and in turn overall quality of life, could be implemented in a timely fashion.

Keywords: cancer; patient reported outcomes; self-efficacy for pain; symptom management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Interest, Disclosures and Acknowledgements: Authors Kelleher, Locklear and Crosswell have no disclosures or financial or personal conflicts of interest to report. Somers was previously supported by an NCI training grant 1KM 1CA15668701. Dr. Abernethy reports board memberships (Advoset, Orange Leaf Associates, Athena Health), consultancies [(Pfizer (2012), Novartis (2011), Helsinn (2009, 2010), Amgen (2009), Bristol-Myers Squibb (pending 2013)], and grants (Pfizer, Helsinn, Amgen, Kanglaite, Alexion, Biovex, DARA, MiCo, NINR). The authors report no other financial or personal conflicts.

Comment in

References

    1. Snyder CF, Jensen RE, Segal JB, Wu AW. Patient-reported Outcomes (PROs): Putting the Patient Perspective in Patient-centered Outcomes Research. Med Care. 2013;51(8 Suppl 3):S73–S79. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Huebner J, Rose C, Geissler J, Gleiter CH, Prott FJ, Muenstedt K, Micke O, Muecke R, Buentzel J, Bottomley A, Hofheinz RD. Integrating cancer patients' perspectives into treatment decisions and treatment evaluation using patient-reported outcomes - a concept paper. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2013;23(2):173–179. - PubMed
    1. Albrecht TA. Striving to improve patient-reported outcomes for cancer survivors as the war wages on. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(9):2204–2205. - PubMed
    1. Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P. Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25(6):535–552. - PubMed
    1. Cleeland CS, Sloan JA. Assessing the Symptoms of Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes (ASCPRO): searching for standards. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;39(6):1077–1085. - PubMed