Peeters Marthe, Ottenheijm Germaine, Bienfait Paul, Eekers Daniëlle, Gijtenbeek Anja, Hanse Monique, Koekkoek Johan, van Leeuwen Leonie, Tijssen Cees, Dirven Linda, Taphoorn Martin
Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2023 Oct;13(e1):e205-e212. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002699. Epub 2021 Mar 2.
Routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology has shown to improve the quality of the delivered care and to prolong survival. However, for successful implementation of routine assessment of PROs, more knowledge on their usability in clinical practice is needed.
This study aimed to cross-sectionally assess the perspective of patients and clinicians on the practicality of routinely measuring PROs in clinical practice for glioma patients.
Semistructured interviews were conducted evaluating the role of healthcare professionals (HCP) in discussing results of PRO measures (PROMs), and the preferred topics, methods and frequency of PRO assessment. Glioma patients, their proxies and HCPs involved in the treatment of glioma patients from eight centres in the Netherlands were included.
Twenty-four patients, 16 proxies and 35 HCPs were interviewed. The majority of patients, proxies and HCPs (92%, 81% and 80%, respectively) were willing to discuss PRO results during consultations. Although HCPs prefer that results are discussed with the nurse specialist, only one-third of patients/proxies agreed. Functioning of daily life was considered important in all three groups. Most participants indicated that discussion of PROM results should take place during standard follow-up visits, and completed at home about 1 week in advance. On group level, there was no preference for administration of questionnaires on paper or digitally. Lastly, all centres had staff available to send questionnaires on paper.
This study shows that routine assessment of PROs is desired by patients, proxies and HCP's in neuro-oncological care in Dutch hospitals.
肿瘤学中患者报告结局（PROs）的常规评估已显示可改善所提供护理的质量并延长生存期。然而，为了成功实施PROs的常规评估，需要更多关于其在临床实践中可用性的知识。
本研究旨在横断面评估患者和临床医生对在临床实践中对胶质瘤患者常规测量PROs实用性的看法。
进行了半结构化访谈，评估医疗保健专业人员（HCP）在讨论PRO测量结果（PROMs）中的作用，以及PRO评估的首选主题、方法和频率。纳入了来自荷兰八个中心的胶质瘤患者、其代理人以及参与治疗胶质瘤患者的HCP。
共访谈了24名患者、16名代理人和35名HCP。大多数患者、代理人和HCP（分别为92%、81%和80%）愿意在会诊期间讨论PRO结果。尽管HCP更希望与护士专家讨论结果，但只有三分之一的患者/代理人表示同意。三组均认为日常生活功能很重要。大多数参与者表示，PROM结果的讨论应在标准随访期间进行，并提前约1周在家中完成。在组层面上，对于以纸质形式还是数字形式发放问卷没有偏好。最后，所有中心都有工作人员可用于发放纸质问卷。
本研究表明，荷兰医院的神经肿瘤护理中，患者、代理人和HCP都希望对PROs进行常规评估。
