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
. 2023 Jun 28:9:e40875.
doi: 10.2196/40875.

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study

Anna-Mari Laitio  1 , Guido Giunti  2   3 , Raija Halonen  1
Affiliations
Review

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study

Anna-Mari Laitio et al. JMIR Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Cancer is a major global health problem. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) systems have been developed to support the treatment of patients with cancer. Although clear evidence of the benefits of the routine use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) exists, engaging physicians in using these systems has been challenging.

Objective: This study aims to identify and analyze what is currently known about health care professionals' (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators that exist and influence the use of ePRO systems for cancer care.

Methods: We carried out a systematic mapping study by conducting searches of 3 databases (Association for Computing Machinery, PubMed, and Scopus). Eligible papers were published between 2010 and 2021, and they described HCPs' perspectives on using ePROs. The data on the included papers were extracted, a thematic meta-synthesis was performed, and 7 themes were summarized into 3 categories.

Results: A total of 17 papers were included in the study. The HCPs' perceived barriers and facilitators of using ePROs can be summarized into 7 themes: clinical workflow, organization and infrastructure, value to patients, value to HCPs, digital health literacy, usability, and data visualization and perceived features. These themes can be further summarized into 3 categories: work environment, value to users, and suggested features. According to the study, ePROs should be interoperable with hospital electronic health records and adapted to the hospital workflow. HCPs should get appropriate support for their use. Additional features are needed for ePROs, and special attention should be paid to data visualization. Patients should have the option to use web-based ePROs at home and complete it at the time most valuable to the treatment. Patients' ePRO notes need attention during clinical visits, but ePRO use should not limit patient-clinician face-to-face communication.

Conclusions: The study revealed that several aspects need improvement in ePROs and their operating environments. By improving these aspects, HCPs' experience with ePROs will enhance, and thus, there will be more facilitating factors for HCPs to use ePROs than those available today. More national and international knowledge about using ePROs is still needed to cover the need for information to develop them and their operating environments to meet the needs of HCPs.

Keywords: barriers; cancer; facilitators; health care professionals; patient-reported outcome system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: AML is currently working for a pharmaceutical company (MSD Finland) as a Policy & Patient Engagement Lead.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The number of included and excluded papers during the study selection process. ACM: Association for Computing Machinery.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2017 a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(12):1749–1769. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2996. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2752381 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, Rogak L, Bennett AV, Dueck AC, Atkinson TM, Chou JF, Dulko D, Sit L, Barz A, Novotny P, Fruscione M, Sloan JA, Schrag D. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(6):557–565. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26644527 JCO.2015.63.0830 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, Scher HI, Kris MG, Hudis C, Schrag D. Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA. 2017;318(2):197–198. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/28586821 2630810 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, Harrow A, Di Domenico D, Croy S, MacGillivray S. What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1480–1501. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948. https://core.ac.uk/reader/158368143?utm_source=linkout JCO.2013.53.5948 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rotenstein LS, Huckman RS, Wagle NW. Making patients and doctors happier—the potential of patient-reported outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(14):1309–1312. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1707537. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources