Patient-reported outcome measurement implementation in cancer survivors: a systematic review

• Published in: Journal of cancer survivorship 2024-04, Vol.18 (2), p.223-244
• Main Authors: Singhal, Surbhi, Dickerson, James, Glover, Michael J., Roy, Mohana, Chiu, Michelle, Ellis-Caleo, Timothy, Hui, Gavin, Tamayo, Carla, Loecher, Nele, Wong, Hong-nei, Heathcote, Lauren C., Schapira, Lidia
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cancer; Cancer Survivors - psychology; Clinical outcomes; Demographics; Health Informatics; Health Promotion and Disease Prevention; Health services; Humans; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neoplasms - mortality; Neoplasms - psychology; Neoplasms - therapy; Oncology; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patients; Primary Care Medicine; Public Health; Quality of Life; Quality of Life Research; Review; Survival; Survivorship; Systematic review
• ISSN: 1932-2259; 1932-2267; 1932-2267
• DOI: 10.1007/s11764-022-01216-w

Purpose Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are increasingly used for cancer patients receiving active treatment, but little is known about the implementation and usefulness of PROMs in cancer survivorship care. This systematic review evaluates how cancer survivors and healthcare providers (HCPs) perceive PROM implementation in survivorship care, and how PROM implementation impacts cancer survivors’ health outcomes. Methods We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to February 2022 to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies of PROM implementation in cancer survivors. Results Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 29 studies that reported on 26 unique PROMs. The studies were heterogeneous in study design, PROM instrument, patient demographics, and outcomes. Several studies found that cancer survivors and HCPs had favorable impressions of the utility of PROMs, and a few studies demonstrated that PROM implementation led to improvements in patient quality of life (QoL), with small to moderate effect sizes. Conclusions We found implementation of PROMs in cancer survivorship care improved health outcomes for select patient populations. Future research is needed to assess the real-world utility of PROM integration into clinical workflows and the impact of PROMs on measurable health outcomes. Implications for Cancer Survivors. Cancer survivors accepted PROMs. When successfully implemented, PROMs can improve health outcomes after completion of active treatment. We identify multiple avenues to strengthen PROM implementation to support cancer survivors.