Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on modern management of frailty

LIVE: Thursday 17th October 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Frailty has a significant impact on health and wellbeing, especially in older adults. Join our experts to understand the factors that contribute to the development of frailty and find out how to manage the condition and reduce the risk of disability, dependency, and mortality.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Cancer Survivorship

Open Access 25-09-2024

“Numbers call for action, personalized narratives provide support and recognition”: a qualitative assessment of cancer patients’ perspectives on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) feedback with narratives

Authors: E. Boomstra, S. Hommes, R. D. Vromans, S. van der Burg, A. M. Schrijver, M. W. J. M. Wouters, I. M. C. van der Ploeg, M. W. van de Kamp, E. J. Krahmer, L. V. van de Poll-Franse, K. M. de Ligt

Published in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires completed by patients to gain insight in their health-related quality of life. However, patients often find the interpretation of PROMS challenging. A personalized narrative, i.e., a story with patients’ experiences tailored to the reader, could help explain PROMs and might be appreciated alongside numerical outcomes. We studied how cancer patients perceive PROMs feedback presented in a regular numerical and a novel narrative format.

Methods

Cancer patients who completed PROMs in routine clinical practice were recruited. All participants received numerical feedback and a personalized narrative. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to uncover perceptions of both formats. Interviews were analyzed with an inductive reflexive approach to thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-nine patients with breast cancer, melanoma, and bladder cancer participated. Thematic analysis identified six themes: “Understanding: I get the gist of it!”; “Usefulness: Tell me why I should complete PROMs”; “Format preferences: Numbers are cold, narratives are warm”; “Taking action: Can I do something about my score?”; “Personal relevance: Personalized narratives show me what life has in store for me”; and “Personal relevance: That’s (not) me!” Numbers seemed to help participants act, whereas narratives may provide emotional support and recognition. Participants identified with the content of the narrative yet differed in how they related to the main character.

Conclusion

Personalized narratives could be a useful addition to PROMs feedback. The studied formats seem to serve different purposes; numbers help to facilitate action, personalized narratives provide recognition.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Personalized narratives may be a useful new way to communicate about quality of life to cancer survivors and help them to envision what the impact of cancer can be.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Weldring T, Smith SM. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2013;6:61–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Makhni EC, Hennekes ME. The use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice and clinical decision making. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2023;31(20):1059–66.PubMed
3.
Di Maio M, et al. The role of patient-reported outcome measures in the continuum of cancer clinical care: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Oncol. 2022;33(9):878–92.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Snyder CF, et al. Can patient-reported outcome measures identify cancer patients’ most bothersome issues?. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(9):1216–20.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Scheibe M, et al. Implementation of patient-reported outcome assessment in routine cancer care: a systematic review of multicentric programs in Europe. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2020;156–157:11–23.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Van Der Willik EM, et al. Discussing results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients and healthcare professionals in routine dialysis care: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(11):e067044.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
8.
Ziebland S, Wyke S. Health and illness in a connected world: how might sharing experiences on the internet affect people’s health?. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):219–49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Vromans RD, et al. Need for numbers: assessing cancer survivors’ needs for personalized and generic statistical information. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2022;22(1):260.CrossRef
10.
Linn AJ, et al. May you never forget what is worth remembering: the relation between recall of medical information and medication adherence in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7(11):e543–50.PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
Hyatt A, et al. Communication challenges experienced by migrants with cancer: a comparison of migrant and English-speaking Australian-born cancer patients. Health Expect. 2017;20(5):886–95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Kuijpers W, et al. Patients’ and health professionals’ understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):595–604.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Thestrup Hansen S, et al. User experiences on implementation of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a haematological outpatient clinic. J Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2020;4(1):1–14.CrossRef
15.
Thestrup Hansen S, et al. “I am sure that they use my PROM data for something important.” A qualitative study about patients’ experiences from a hematologic outpatient clinic. Cancer nursing. 2020;43(5):E273–82.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Nelson, J.A., et al., Moving towards patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: implementation lessons from the BREAST-Q. Quality of Life Research, 2022.
17.
Albers EAC, et al. Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy. J Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2022;6(1):18.CrossRef
18.
Willik EM, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures ( PROMs): making sense of individual PROM scores and changes in PROM scores over time. Nephrology. 2021;26(5):391–9.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Reading Turchioe M, et al. Visual analogies, not graphs, increase patients’ comprehension of changes in their health status. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(5):677–89.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Nolte S, et al. General population normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire based on 15,386 persons across 13 European countries, Canada and the Unites States. Eur J Cancer. 2019;107:153–63.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Giesinger JM, et al. Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;118:1–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Gigerenzer G, et al. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interes. 2007;8(2):53–96.CrossRef
23.
Nguyen H, et al. A review of the barriers to using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care. J Med Radiat Sci. 2021;68(2):186–95.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Kreuter MW, et al. Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: a framework to guide research and application. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33(3):221–35.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Shaffer VA, et al. Do personal stories make patient decision aids more effective? An Update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):897–906.PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Braddock K, Dillard J. Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Commun Monogr. 2016;83:446–67.CrossRef
28.
Ter Stege JA, et al. Development of a patient decision aid for patients with breast cancer who consider immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Health Expect. 2022;25(1):232–44.PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
Aaronson NK, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.
31.
Kopec JA. How to Improve Interpretability of patient-reported outcome measures for clinical use: a perspective on measuring abilities and feelings. Patient Relat Outcome Measures. 2022;13:69–77.CrossRef
32.
Kwon JY, Thorne S, Sawatzky R. Interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures through a philosophical lens. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(3):629–36.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Pauws, S., et al., Making effective use of healthcare data using data-to-text technology. 2018. p.?
34.
Jensen JD, et al. Why are tailored messages more effective? A multiple mediation analysis of a breast cancer screening intervention. J Commun. 2012;62(5):851–68.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
36.
van Laer T, et al. The extended transportation-imagery model: a meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ narrative transportation. J Consum Res. 2014;40(5):797–817.CrossRef
37.
Chen M, Bell R. A meta-analysis of the impact of point of view on narrative processing and persuasion in health messaging. Psychol Health. 2021;37:1–18.CrossRef
38.
Ma Z, Yang G. Show me a photo of the character: exploring the interaction between text and visuals in narrative persuasion. J Health Commun. 2022;27(2):125–33.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
40.
Braun V, Clarke V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol. 2021;18(3):328–52.CrossRef
41.
Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport, Exerc Health. 2019;11(4):589–97.CrossRef
42.
Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport, Exerc Health. 2021;13(2):201–16.CrossRef
43.
Strine TW, et al. Health-related quality of life and health behaviors by social and emotional support. Their relevance to psychiatry and medicine. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2008;43(2):151–9.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Betsch C, et al. The narrative bias revisited: what drives the biasing influence of narrative information on risk perceptions? Judgm Decis Mak. 2015;10(3):241–64.CrossRef
45.
Betsch C, et al. The influence of narrative v. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(5):742–53.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zhou M, Ramírez AS, Chittamuru D. Toward a recipe for deep versus surface level tailoring: mixed-methods validation of message features to reduce sugary beverage consumption. J Health Commun. 2022;27(4):211–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Gatt, A. and E. Krahmer, Survey of the state of the art in natural language generation: core tasks, applications and evaluation. arXiv pre-print server, 2018.
48.
Bender EM, et al., On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big?, in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Association for Computing Machinery: Virtual Event, Canada. 2021. (p. 610–623).
49.
Keene Woods N, et al. Health literacy, health outcomes and equity: a trend analysis based on a population survey. J Prim Care Community Health. 2023;14:21501319231156132.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Kreuter MW, McClure SM. The role of culture in health communication. Annu Rev Public Health. 2004;25(1):439–55.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Habib GL, et al. The importance of cultural tailoring of communicators and media outlets in an influenza vaccination awareness campaign: a digital randomized trial. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):1744.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Yılmaz NG, et al. Testing the effects of modality and narration style on patients’ information use in a lung cancer treatment decision aid. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(8):990–1002.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
Jansen CJM, et al. Improving health literacy responsiveness: a randomized study on the uptake of brochures on doctor-patient communication in primary health care waiting rooms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(9):5025.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
Scheibe, M., et al., Implementation of patient-reported outcome assessment in routine cancer care: a systematic review of multicentric programs in Europe, in Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen. Elsevier GmbH; 2020. p. 11–23.
55.
Calvert M, et al. Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ. 2019;364:k5267.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Calvert MJ, et al. Patient reported outcome assessment must be inclusive and equitable. Nat Med. 2022;28(6):1120–4.PubMedCrossRef
57.
MacAskill F, et al. Is it time to rethink the current patient-reported outcome measures? Nat Rev Urol. 2023;20(1):1–2.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Lui F, et al. Social determinants and health-related quality of life in a sample of diverse, low socioeconomic status cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2022;31(11):1922–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Bhattacharyya O, et al. Low neighborhood socioeconomic status is associated with higher mortality and increased surgery utilization among metastatic breast cancer patients. Breast. 2021;59:314–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
“Numbers call for action, personalized narratives provide support and recognition”: a qualitative assessment of cancer patients’ perspectives on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) feedback with narratives
Authors
E. Boomstra
S. Hommes
R. D. Vromans
S. van der Burg
A. M. Schrijver
M. W. J. M. Wouters
I. M. C. van der Ploeg
M. W. van de Kamp
E. J. Krahmer
L. V. van de Poll-Franse
K. M. de Ligt
Publication date
25-09-2024
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Cancer Survivorship
Print ISSN: 1932-2259
Electronic ISSN: 1932-2267
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-024-01663-7

2024 ESMO Congress

Add-on Ra223 could be a new first-line option in mCRPC

Adding radium-223 to first-line enzalutamide significantly improves the survival of patients with bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Read more

AI model can predict tumor mutations

No OS benefit of adding preoperative CRT in gastric cancer

T-DXd supported for breast cancer with brain metastases

» View more highlights on the ESMO 2024 hub page

Recent advances in the use of CAR T-cell therapies in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma

  • Webinar | 01-10-2024 | 12:30 (CEST)

Live event concluded

In this webinar, Professor Martin Dreyling and an esteemed, international panel of CAR-T experts discuss the latest data on the safety, efficacy, and clinical impact of CAR T-cell therapies in the treatment of r/r DLBCL and r/r FL.

Please note, this webinar is not intended for healthcare professionals based in the US and UK.

Sponsored by: Novartis Pharma AG

Chaired by: Prof. Martin Dreyling
Developed by: Springer Healthcare
Get a reminder for the on-demand version
Image Credits