Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Care | Study protocol

Implementation analysis of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in oncological routine care: an observational study protocol

Authors: Mirja Gianna Görlach, Theresa Schrage, Carsten Bokemeyer, Nicolaus Kröger, Volkmar Müller, Cordula Petersen, Christian Stephan Betz, Andreas Krüll, Holger Schulz, Christiane Bleich

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The successful implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical routine faces many challenges, first and foremost the lack of consideration thereof in the patient care process. The aim of this study will be to first identify relevant barriers and facilitators and then design suitable implementation strategies which will be evaluated to improve the effectiveness of a PRO measure assessment in inpatient and outpatient cancer routine care.

Methods

During the preparation phase, interviews with oncological patients (N = 28) and medical staff (N = 4) as well as focus groups with medical staff (N = 18) across five different departments caring for cancer patients were conducted. On the basis of these, qualitative content analysis revealed relevant barriers and facilitators for implementation of PROs in cancer care. Subsequently, implementation strategies and a model of implementation were developed. In the study phase, implementation strategies will be evaluated based on nine different implementation outcomes in five different oncological clinics. Evaluation of the implementation process will take place during three months in each clinic and data will be conducted pre, while and post implementation of the PRO measure. Therefore a sample size of 60 participants of whom 30 staff members and 30 participants will be questioned using existing and newly developed implementation outcome evaluation instruments.

Discussion

Key to improving the effectiveness of PRO assessment in the time-critical clinical environment is the utilization of easy-to-use, electronic PRO questionnaires directly linked to patients’ records thereby improving consideration of PROs in patient care. In order to validate the effectiveness of this implementation process further, an evaluation parallel to implementation following an observational study design with a mixed-methods approach will be conducted. This study could contribute to the development of adequate evaluation processes of implementation of PROs to foster sustainable integration of PRO measures into routine cancer care.

Trial registration

This study was registered at Open Science Framework (https://​osf.​io/​y7xce/​).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Registration of this study at Open Science Framework (https://​osf.​io/​y7xce/​).
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Basch E, et al. Implementation of patient-reported outcomes in routine medical care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018;38:122–34.CrossRef Basch E, et al. Implementation of patient-reported outcomes in routine medical care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018;38:122–34.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Anker SD, et al. The importance of patient-reported outcomes: a call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(30):2001–9.CrossRef Anker SD, et al. The importance of patient-reported outcomes: a call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(30):2001–9.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Anatchkova M, et al. Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):64.CrossRef Anatchkova M, et al. Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):64.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bjordal K. Impact of quality of life measurement in daily clinical practice. Ann Oncol. 2004;15(Suppl 4):iv279–82.PubMed Bjordal K. Impact of quality of life measurement in daily clinical practice. Ann Oncol. 2004;15(Suppl 4):iv279–82.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Kenzik KM, et al. How much do cancer-related symptoms contribute to health-related quality of life in lung and colorectal cancer patients? A report from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium. Cancer (0008543X). 2015;121(16):2831–9.CrossRef Kenzik KM, et al. How much do cancer-related symptoms contribute to health-related quality of life in lung and colorectal cancer patients? A report from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium. Cancer (0008543X). 2015;121(16):2831–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hilarius DL, et al. Use of health-related quality-of-life assessments in daily clinical oncology nursing practice. Cancer. 2008;113(3):628–37.CrossRef Hilarius DL, et al. Use of health-related quality-of-life assessments in daily clinical oncology nursing practice. Cancer. 2008;113(3):628–37.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Duncan EA, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):96.CrossRef Duncan EA, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):96.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Glasgow RE, et al. National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(7):1274–81.CrossRef Glasgow RE, et al. National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(7):1274–81.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1):1.CrossRef Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1):1.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ross J, et al. Developing an implementation strategy for a digital health intervention: an example in routine healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):794.CrossRef Ross J, et al. Developing an implementation strategy for a digital health intervention: an example in routine healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):794.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Proctor E, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.CrossRef Proctor E, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Damschroder LJ, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):1–15.CrossRef Damschroder LJ, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):1–15.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Zängl, P., Zukunft der Pflege: 20 Jahre Norddeutsches Zentrum zur Weiterentwicklung der Pflege. 2015: Springer-Verlag. Zängl, P., Zukunft der Pflege: 20 Jahre Norddeutsches Zentrum zur Weiterentwicklung der Pflege. 2015: Springer-Verlag.
14.
go back to reference Fixsen, D.L., et al., Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. 2005. Fixsen, D.L., et al., Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. 2005.
15.
go back to reference Wintner LM, et al. Verwendung und Nutzen von Patient-Reported Outcomes in der onkologischen Behandlung: eine Übersicht. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2012;124(9):293–303.CrossRef Wintner LM, et al. Verwendung und Nutzen von Patient-Reported Outcomes in der onkologischen Behandlung: eine Übersicht. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2012;124(9):293–303.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Mitchell AJ. Screening for cancer-related distress: when is implementation successful and when is it unsuccessful? Acta Oncol. 2013;52(2):216–24.CrossRef Mitchell AJ. Screening for cancer-related distress: when is implementation successful and when is it unsuccessful? Acta Oncol. 2013;52(2):216–24.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Antunes B, Harding R, Higginson IJ. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):158–75.CrossRef Antunes B, Harding R, Higginson IJ. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):158–75.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Glasgow, R.E. The RE-AIM model for planning, evaluation and reporting on implementation and dissemination research. in NIH Conference on Building the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in the Service of Public Health: Bethesda, MD. 2007. Glasgow, R.E. The RE-AIM model for planning, evaluation and reporting on implementation and dissemination research. in NIH Conference on Building the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in the Service of Public Health: Bethesda, MD. 2007.
19.
go back to reference Lewis CC, et al. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):155.CrossRef Lewis CC, et al. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):155.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22.CrossRef Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Helfferich C. Die Qualität qualitativer Daten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2009.CrossRef Helfferich C. Die Qualität qualitativer Daten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2009.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Barbour R. Doing Focus Groups. Qualitative research kit. Vol. 5. 2014. London: Sage Publishing. Barbour R. Doing Focus Groups. Qualitative research kit. Vol. 5. 2014. London: Sage Publishing.
23.
go back to reference Tariman JD, et al. Validation and testing of the acceptability E-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care. Appl Nurs Res. 2011;24(1):53–8.CrossRef Tariman JD, et al. Validation and testing of the acceptability E-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care. Appl Nurs Res. 2011;24(1):53–8.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Willis, G., et al., Evaluation of a Multistep Survey Translation Process. Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts. 2010. p. 141–156.CrossRef Willis, G., et al., Evaluation of a Multistep Survey Translation Process. Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts. 2010. p. 141–156.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference lindig, A., Hahlweg, P., Christalle, E., Scholl, I. , Assessing psychometric properties of the German version of Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC). (in preparation). lindig, A., Hahlweg, P., Christalle, E., Scholl, I. , Assessing psychometric properties of the German version of Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC). (in preparation).
26.
go back to reference Bartholomew NG, et al. Counselor assessments of training and adoption barriers. J Subst Abus Treat. 2007;33(2):193–9.CrossRef Bartholomew NG, et al. Counselor assessments of training and adoption barriers. J Subst Abus Treat. 2007;33(2):193–9.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Mayring, P., Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. 2008, Weinheim und Basel: Beltz. Mayring, P., Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. 2008, Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.
28.
go back to reference Bonomi AE, et al. Multilingual translation of the functional assessment of Cancer therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Qual Life Res. 1996;5(3):309–20.CrossRef Bonomi AE, et al. Multilingual translation of the functional assessment of Cancer therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Qual Life Res. 1996;5(3):309–20.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Viechtbauer W, et al. A simple formula for the calculation of sample size in pilot studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(11):1375–9.CrossRef Viechtbauer W, et al. A simple formula for the calculation of sample size in pilot studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(11):1375–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Implementation analysis of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in oncological routine care: an observational study protocol
Authors
Mirja Gianna Görlach
Theresa Schrage
Carsten Bokemeyer
Nicolaus Kröger
Volkmar Müller
Cordula Petersen
Christian Stephan Betz
Andreas Krüll
Holger Schulz
Christiane Bleich
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1262-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2020 Go to the issue