Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 3/2022

Open Access 01-03-2022 | Care | Original Article

Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals’ preferences for learning content and methods

Authors: Monika Sztankay, Lisa M. Wintner, Sigrid Roggendorf, Thomas Nordhausen, Linda Dirven, Martin J. B. Taphoorn, Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, Galina Velikova, Andrew Bottomley, Dagmara Kulis, Timo Kachel, Heike Schmidt, on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 3/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning course for health care professionals (HCPs) on the utilisation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PROMs in oncological clinical practice is being developed. This study aimed to explore future users’ educational needs regarding content and learning methods.

Methods

The sequential mixed methods approach was applied. A scoping literature review informed the guideline for qualitative interviews with HCPs with diverse professional backgrounds in oncology and cancer advocates recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. An international online survey was conducted to validate the qualitative findings.

Results

Between December 2019 and May 2020, 73 interviews were conducted in 9 countries resulting in 8 topic areas (Basic information on PROs in clinical routine, Benefits of PRO assessments in clinical practice, Implementation of PRO assessments in clinical routine, Setup of PRO assessments for clinical application, Interpretation of PRO data, Integration of PROs into the communication with patients, Use of PROs in clinical practice, Self-management recommendations for patients based on PROs) subsequently presented in the online survey. The online survey (open between 3 June and 19 July 2020) was completed by 233 HCPs from 33 countries. The highest preference was indicated for content on interpretation of PRO data (97%), clinical benefits of assessing PRO data (95.3%) and implementation of routine PRO data assessment (94.8%). Regarding learning methods, participants indicated a high preference for practical examples that use a mixed approach of presentation (written, audio, video and interactive).

Conclusion

Educational needs for an integration of PROs in communication in clinical care and coherent implementation strategies became evident. These results inform the development of an e-learning course to support HCPs in the clinical use of EORTC PRO measures.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference FDA (2006) Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:79 FDA (2006) Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:79
2.
go back to reference Gilbert A, Sebag-Montefiore D, Davidson S, Velikova G (2015) Use of patient-reported outcomes to measure symptoms and health related quality of life in the clinic. Gynecol Oncol 136(3):429–439CrossRef Gilbert A, Sebag-Montefiore D, Davidson S, Velikova G (2015) Use of patient-reported outcomes to measure symptoms and health related quality of life in the clinic. Gynecol Oncol 136(3):429–439CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, Harrow A, Di Domenico D, Croy S, MacGillivray S (2014) 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 32(14):1480–1501CrossRef Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, Harrow A, Di Domenico D, Croy S, MacGillivray S (2014) 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 32(14):1480–1501CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Denis F, Basch E, Septans AL, Bennouna J, Urban T, Dueck AC, Letellier C (2019) Two-year survival comparing web-based symptom monitoring vs routine surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. JAMA 321(3):306–307CrossRef Denis F, Basch E, Septans AL, Bennouna J, Urban T, Dueck AC, Letellier C (2019) Two-year survival comparing web-based symptom monitoring vs routine surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. JAMA 321(3):306–307CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, Rogak L, Bennett AV, Dueck AC, Atkinson TM et al (2016) Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 34(6):557–565CrossRef Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, Rogak L, Bennett AV, Dueck AC, Atkinson TM et al (2016) Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 34(6):557–565CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, Scher HI, Kris MG, Hudis C, Schrag D (2017) Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 318(2):197–198CrossRef Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, Scher HI, Kris MG, Hudis C, Schrag D (2017) Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 318(2):197–198CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Porter I, Goncalves-Bradley D, Ricci-Cabello I, Gibbons C, Gangannagaripalli J, Fitzpatrick R, Black N, Greenhalgh J, Valderas JM (2016) Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities. J Comp Eff Res 5(5):507–519CrossRef Porter I, Goncalves-Bradley D, Ricci-Cabello I, Gibbons C, Gangannagaripalli J, Fitzpatrick R, Black N, Greenhalgh J, Valderas JM (2016) Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities. J Comp Eff Res 5(5):507–519CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Voutilainen A, Saaranen T, Sormunen M (2017) Conventional vs. e-learning in nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today 50:97–103CrossRef Voutilainen A, Saaranen T, Sormunen M (2017) Conventional vs. e-learning in nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today 50:97–103CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sinclair PM, Kable A, Levett-Jones T, Booth D (2016) The effectiveness of Internet-based e-learning on clinician behaviour and patient outcomes: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 57:70–81CrossRef Sinclair PM, Kable A, Levett-Jones T, Booth D (2016) The effectiveness of Internet-based e-learning on clinician behaviour and patient outcomes: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 57:70–81CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lahti M, Hatonen H, Valimaki M (2014) Impact of e-learning on nurses’ and student nurses knowledge, skills, and satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 51(1):136–149CrossRef Lahti M, Hatonen H, Valimaki M (2014) Impact of e-learning on nurses’ and student nurses knowledge, skills, and satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 51(1):136–149CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Santana MJ, Haverman L, Absolom K, Takeuchi E, Feeny D, Grootenhuis M, Velikova G (2015) Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Qual Life Res Santana MJ, Haverman L, Absolom K, Takeuchi E, Feeny D, Grootenhuis M, Velikova G (2015) Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Qual Life Res
12.
go back to reference Stephen T (2019) Integrating quality of life assessments in student clinical learning experience. Qual Adv Nurs Educ Stephen T (2019) Integrating quality of life assessments in student clinical learning experience. Qual Adv Nurs Educ
13.
go back to reference Absolom K (2014) Using a patient-reported outcome measure in chemotherapy review consultations: the impact of an interactive doctor training session. In. Absolom K (2014) Using a patient-reported outcome measure in chemotherapy review consultations: the impact of an interactive doctor training session. In.
14.
go back to reference Bausewein C, Simon ST, Benalia H, Downing J, Mwangi-Powell FN, Daveson BA, Harding R, Higginson IJ (2011) Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care–users’ cry for help. Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:27CrossRef Bausewein C, Simon ST, Benalia H, Downing J, Mwangi-Powell FN, Daveson BA, Harding R, Higginson IJ (2011) Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care–users’ cry for help. Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:27CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Ly JJ, Crescioni M, Eremenco S, Bodart S, Donoso M, Butler AJ, Dallabrida SM (2019) Training on the use of technology to collect patient-reported outcome data electronically in clinical trials: best practice recommendations from the ePRO Consortium. Ther Innov Regul Sci 53(4):431–440CrossRef Ly JJ, Crescioni M, Eremenco S, Bodart S, Donoso M, Butler AJ, Dallabrida SM (2019) Training on the use of technology to collect patient-reported outcome data electronically in clinical trials: best practice recommendations from the ePRO Consortium. Ther Innov Regul Sci 53(4):431–440CrossRef
16.
go back to reference van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Nijland N, van Limburg M, Ossebaard HC, Kelders SM, Eysenbach G, Seydel ER (2011) A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J med Internet res 13(4):e111CrossRef van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Nijland N, van Limburg M, Ossebaard HC, Kelders SM, Eysenbach G, Seydel ER (2011) A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J med Internet res 13(4):e111CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Stuij SM, Drossaert CHC, Labrie NHM, Hulsman RL, Kersten MJ, van Dulmen S, Smets EMA (2020) group Ip: Developing a digital training tool to support oncologists in the skill of information-provision: a user centred approach. BMC Med Educ 20(1):135CrossRef Stuij SM, Drossaert CHC, Labrie NHM, Hulsman RL, Kersten MJ, van Dulmen S, Smets EMA (2020) group Ip: Developing a digital training tool to support oncologists in the skill of information-provision: a user centred approach. BMC Med Educ 20(1):135CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Stuij SM, Labrie NHM, van Dulmen S, Kersten MJ, Christoph N, Hulsman RL, Smets E (2018) group Ip: Developing a digital communication training tool on information-provision in oncology: uncovering learning needs and training preferences. BMC Med Educ 18(1):220CrossRef Stuij SM, Labrie NHM, van Dulmen S, Kersten MJ, Christoph N, Hulsman RL, Smets E (2018) group Ip: Developing a digital communication training tool on information-provision in oncology: uncovering learning needs and training preferences. BMC Med Educ 18(1):220CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
20.
go back to reference Mayring P (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. edn. Edited by Mey G. MK: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Mayring P (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. edn. Edited by Mey G. MK: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
21.
go back to reference Guetterman TC, Fetters MD, Creswell JW (2015) Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Ann Fam Med 13(6):554–561CrossRef Guetterman TC, Fetters MD, Creswell JW (2015) Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Ann Fam Med 13(6):554–561CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Wohlfahrt P, Zickmund SL, Slager S, Allen LA, Nicolau JN, Kfoury AG, Felker GM, Conte J, Flint K, DeVore AD et al (2020) Provider perspectives on the feasibility and utility of routine patient-reported outcomes assessment in heart failure: a qualitative analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 9(2):e013047CrossRef Wohlfahrt P, Zickmund SL, Slager S, Allen LA, Nicolau JN, Kfoury AG, Felker GM, Conte J, Flint K, DeVore AD et al (2020) Provider perspectives on the feasibility and utility of routine patient-reported outcomes assessment in heart failure: a qualitative analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 9(2):e013047CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Litchfield I, Greenfield S, Turner GM, Finnikin S, Calvert MJ (2021) Implementing PROMs in routine clinical care: a qualitative exploration of GP perspectives. BJGP Open Litchfield I, Greenfield S, Turner GM, Finnikin S, Calvert MJ (2021) Implementing PROMs in routine clinical care: a qualitative exploration of GP perspectives. BJGP Open
24.
go back to reference Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, Hess R, Miller DM, Reeve BB, Santana M (2012) Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res 21(8):1305–1314CrossRef Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, Hess R, Miller DM, Reeve BB, Santana M (2012) Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res 21(8):1305–1314CrossRef
25.
go back to reference NicGiollaEaspaig B, Tran Y, Bierbaum M, Arnolda G, Delaney GP, Liauw W, Ward RL, Olver I, Currow D, Girgis A et al (2020) What are the attitudes of health professionals regarding patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in oncology practice? A mixed-method synthesis of the qualitative evidence. BMC Health Serv Res 20(1):102CrossRef NicGiollaEaspaig B, Tran Y, Bierbaum M, Arnolda G, Delaney GP, Liauw W, Ward RL, Olver I, Currow D, Girgis A et al (2020) What are the attitudes of health professionals regarding patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in oncology practice? A mixed-method synthesis of the qualitative evidence. BMC Health Serv Res 20(1):102CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals’ preferences for learning content and methods
Authors
Monika Sztankay
Lisa M. Wintner
Sigrid Roggendorf
Thomas Nordhausen
Linda Dirven
Martin J. B. Taphoorn
Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw
Galina Velikova
Andrew Bottomley
Dagmara Kulis
Timo Kachel
Heike Schmidt
on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group
Publication date
01-03-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
Care
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06676-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

Supportive Care in Cancer 3/2022 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine