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
. 2024 Oct 29;5(1):120.
doi: 10.1186/s43058-024-00654-0.

Facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: a systematic review based on the consolidated framework for implementation research

Affiliations
Review

Facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: a systematic review based on the consolidated framework for implementation research

Jianxia Lyu et al. Implement Sci Commun. .

Abstract

Background: In clinical oncology practice, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential for assessing the symptom burden, quality of life, and psychological status of patients. However, there remains a gap between the use of PROs in an oncologic setting and its implementation. Furthermore, numerous reviews in PRO implementation are often based on one particular technology, setting, or health condition, making it difficult to obtain a comprehensive and coherent summary of available evidence to help plan and undertake implementation. This systematic review aims to identify and integrate enablers and barriers to PRO implementation through the comprehensive framework for implementation research (CFIR) to provide a reference for implementing patient-reported outcomes management in oncology settings.

Methods: This review strictly observed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched using a three-step search strategy. The search was limited from the inception of each database to April 2024. Articles describing facilitators and barriers to implementing PROs in clinical oncology practice were included. Two researchers screened the literature independently, and the quality assessment of cross-sectional, qualitative, and mixed studies was completed using the critical appraisal tools recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the mixed methods assessment tool, respectively. Basic information about the included studies and determinants affecting PRO implementation was extracted, and coding categorization of facilitators and barriers was completed based on the 48 constructs provided by the CFIR framework.

Results: We included 30 studies from 5,649 search results, including 25 original and 5 review studies. The quality of the literature for qualitative studies was generally good, and the quality for quantitative and mixed studies was assessed as fair. We identified 52 facilitators and 50 barriers in the included literature, covering the domains used in the CFIR framework and 39 constructs, mainly including "Innovation Evidence-Base", "Innovation Complexity", "Innovation Design", "Structural Characteristics", "Compatibility", "Incentive Systems", "Access to Knowledge & Information", "Innovation Deliverers", "Innovation Recipients", and "Planning".

Conclusions: This systematic review integrated facilitators and barriers affecting PRO implementation in routine oncology clinical practice settings and categorized them through the CFIR framework. These influencing factors should be fully considered in future clinical practice to ensure the successful implementation of PROs.

Trial registration: It has been registered prospectively in PROSPERO under the registration number 42024532983.

Keywords: Barriers; Consolidated framework for implementation research; Facilitators; Implementation science; Patient-reported outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gordon BE, Chen RC. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer survivorship[J]. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(2):166–73. 10.1080/0284186x.2016.1268265. - PubMed
    1. Milton L, Behroozian T, Coburn N, et al. Prediction of breast cancer-related outcomes with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale: A literature review[J]. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(2):595–603. 10.1007/s00520-020-05755-9. - PubMed
    1. van den Hurk CJG, Mols F, Eicher M, et al. A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring[J]. Curr Oncol. 2022;29(6):4370–85. 10.3390/curroncol29060349. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Basch E. Patient-Reported Outcomes - Harnessing Patients’ Voices to Improve Clinical Care[J]. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(2):105–8. 10.1056/NEJMp1611252. - PubMed
    1. Shi Q, Mendoza TR, Wang XS, et al. Using a symptom-specific instrument to measure patient-reported daily functioning in patients with cancer[J]. Eur J Cancer. 2016;67:83–90. 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.027. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources