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
Review
. 2021 Jun;68(2):186-195.
doi: 10.1002/jmrs.421. Epub 2020 Aug 19.

A review of the barriers to using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care

Hanh Nguyen  1 , Phyllis Butow  2 , Haryana Dhillon  2 , Puma Sundaresan  1   3
Affiliations
Review

A review of the barriers to using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care

Hanh Nguyen et al. J Med Radiat Sci. 2021 Jun.

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are direct reports from patients about the status of their health condition without amendment or interpretation by others. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the tools used to measure PROs; they are usually validated questionnaires patients complete by self-assessing their health status. Whilst the benefits of using PROs and PROMs to guide real-time patient care are well established, they have not been adopted by many oncology institutions worldwide. This literature review aimed to examine the barriers associated with using PROs and PROMs in routine oncology care.

Methods: A literature search was conducted across EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL databases. Studies detailing barriers to routine PRO use for real-time patient care were included; those focusing on PRO collection in the research setting were excluded.

Results: Of 1165 records captured, 14 studies informed this review. At the patient level, patient time, incapacity and difficulty using electronic devices to complete PROMs were prominent barriers. At the health professional level, major barriers included health professionals' lack of time and knowledge to meaningfully interpret and integrate PRO data into their clinical practice and the inability for PRO data to be acted upon. Prominent barriers at the service level included difficulties integrating PROs and PROMs into clinical workflows and inadequate information technology (IT) infrastructures for easy PRO collection.

Conclusion: This review has outlined potential barriers to routine PRO use in the oncology setting. Such barriers should be considered when implementing PROs into routine clinical practice.

Keywords: barriers; cancer; oncology; patient-reported outcome measures; patient-reported outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Process adopted for study selection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dirven L, Armstrong TS, Blakeley JO, et al. Working plan for the use of patient‐reported outcome measures in adults with brain tumours: A response assessment in neuro‐oncology (RANO) initiative. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19(3): e173–e80. - PubMed
    1. Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America . Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC), 2001.
    1. Laugsand EA, Sprangers MA, Bjordal K, Skorpen F, Kaasa S, Klepstad P. Health care providers underestimate symptom intensities of cancer patients: a multicenter European study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010; 8: 104. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Di Maio M, Gallo C, Leighl NB, et al. Symptomatic toxicities experienced during anticancer treatment: agreement between patient and physician reporting in three randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33(8): 910–5. - PubMed
    1. Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, Abdul Nazir CP. Patient‐reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res 2011; 2(4): 137–44. - PMC - PubMed