Background
Methods
Existing systematic reviews and rationale for the current review
First author, year | Aim and review scope | Time span and the search strategy | Search Terms | Articles included in the review | Major conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Luckett et al. 2009 [26] | To identify future strategies for (1) interventions to impact patient outcomes; and (2) trials to identify treatment effects. | MEDLINE and PsycINFO were systematically searched to identify reports of relevant randomised controlled trials. The time span was between 2006 and 1 August 2008. Four cancer trials were cited in a previous review (Valderas et al. 2008)[27]. | 1. Examined the citations of the four trials 2. Adopted the strategy used by Valderas et al. [27] and Espallargues et al. [29] which involved searching for the terms ‘health status’, ‘functional status’ or ‘quality of life’ and ‘clinical practice’, ‘clinical setting’, ‘practice setting’, ‘medical practice’ or ‘medical consultation’ anywhere in the title, abstract or keywords. Results were limited by publication date (2006–2008) and the MeSH or keyword neoplasm. | 6 RCTs | Future interventions should motivate and equip health professionals to use PROs data in managing patients, training patients in self-efficacy, using more specific PROs in clinics, improving the interpretability of feedback for both medical staff and patients, and monitoring the use of PROs to intervene when problems arise. Future trials should use a cluster randomised design to control for contamination and enable systems-based interventions. |
Valderas et al. 2008 [27] | To summarize the best evidence regarding the impact of providing patient reported outcomes (PRO) information to health care professionals in daily clinical practice. | Systematic review of randomised clinical trials (Medline, Cochrane Library); reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and requests to authors and experts in the field. Time span: Articles published between 1978 and 2007. | No exact search terms provided but indicated available from the author upon request. | 34 articles corresponding to 28 original studies; only 2 (not 4) as mentioned in the above review, are in an oncologic setting. | Methodological concerns limit the strength of inference regarding the impact of providing PROs information to clinicians. Results suggest great heterogeneity of impact; contexts and interventions that will yield important benefits remain to be clearly defined. |
Marshall et al. 2006 [28] | To synthesize the evidence for using publically reported performance data to improve quality. Only articles that provided empirical evidence on the impact of public reporting on outcomes (effectiveness, patient safety, and patient-centeredness) and unintended consequences, as well as selection and quality improvement activity were included. | Webspirs Medline was searched for the years from January 1976 to November 2004. Reference lists of included studies and appropriate reviews (Greenhalgh & Meadows 1999[30]; Espallargues et al. 2000 [29]; Gilbody et al. 2003 [31]) were also searched for relevant articles. Finally, PubMed’s ‘related articles’ feature was used with several background and included articles (Drury et al. 2000 [32]; Velikova et al. 2004 [13]) to identify publications with a high proportion of similar text in the title and abstract. | Terms used in relation to patient-reported outcome measures (for example, ‘self report* near2 measure*’) joined with an ‘and’ command to terms related to routine practice outcomes (for example, ‘improve* near detect*’) or patient involvement in the health care process (such as ‘patient* near provider* near interaction*’). | 40 articles included in the review including 5 publications from an oncologic setting. | The pattern of results suggests a general lack of clarity in the field, especially regarding appropriate goals for PROs and the mechanisms by which they might achieve them. To fully evaluate their role in routine practice, studies need to use PROs that capture issues of importance to patients and to measure impacts relating to the patient–provider relationship and patient contributions to their well-being. Until studies evaluate PROs as a means to facilitate patient-centred care, their full potential in clinical practice will remain unknown. |
Review search strategy
Aim, study selection and endpoints of the review
Number | Outcomes |
---|---|
1 | Patient-provider communication |
2 | Monitor treatment response |
3 | Detect unrecognised problems |
4 | Changes to patient health behaviour |
5 | Changes to patient management |
6 | Improved patient satisfaction |
7 | Improved health outcomes |
8 | Strong & effective quality improvement |
9 | Increased transparency, accountability, public reporting |
10 | Better system performance (monitoring, planning, financing; evaluating, responding) |
11 | Mediating variables on the effect (both at individual and organisation level) |
12 | Possible subgroup effects |
Reference | Country / Jurisdiction | Design | Sample / Population | Outcome measures | PROS used | Intervention / Number of times feedback | Members of medical team given feedback | Management plan offered to team | Training to staff | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Global Rating |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trowbridge et al. (1997) [39] | USA (Central Indiana Community Cancer Centres, Indianapolis) | RCT: Intervention / Control | 320 cancer outpatients, 13 oncologists and 23 clinics | Pain Management Index(ref); pain medication level (0–3) minus pain level: Patient assessment of pain, pain regiments and relief received Patterns of analgesic prescription | Estimates of average and worst pain over the previous 7 days, satisfaction with current pain regimens and degree of relief received | One | Doctors only (12) | No | No | ** | *** | √√ |
Tazenzer et al. (2000) [33] | Canada (Tom Baker Cancer Centre , Calgary, Alberta) | Before-after trial: usual care group /Intervention group with before as control | 53 lung cancer patients attending an outpatient lung cancer clinic | EORTIC QLQ-C30 11-item Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PDIS) ( adapted through Falvo and Smith,1983) Exit Interview (patient’s perception if QL issues had been addressed during the visit) Medical Record Audit on patients’ care plan | EORTC QLQ-C30 (on a PC) | Once | Doctors and nurses | No | Ground round introduction and training | * | *** | √√ |
McLachlan et al. (2001) [38] | Australia (Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne) | RCT: Intervention /control (ratio: 2:1) | 450 cancer patients attending ambulatory clinics | Patient HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30) 32-item Patient needs (Cancer Needs Questionnaire Short Form [CNQ] Patient distress (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) Patient satisfaction (in 6-month) Services provided for those identified as required by coordination nurse | EORTC QLQ-C30, CNQ, BDI (through a touch-screen PC) | One | Doctor and coordination nurse (numbers not reporter) | Individualised plan developed by coordination nurse in accordance with generic psychosocial guidelines | No | ** | *** | √√ |
Detmar et al. (2002) [37] | Netherland (Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam) | RCT: (Cross-over design) Intervention/control | 214 palliative cancer patients in a outpatient clinic of a cancer hospital | Patient-doctor communication Doctor’s awareness of patient HRQoL Patient management Patients’/doctors’ satisfaction Patient HRQoL (SF-36) Patients’/doctors’ evaluation of intervention | EORTC QLQ-30 | Three | Doctors (n=10) | No | Doctors given 30-mins training and patient mailed a leaflet | *** | **** | √√√ |
Mooney et al. (2002) [16] | USA (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah) | A pilot Prospective study over a month period with daily measures | 27 patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at a cancer centre outpatient clinic | Telephone-Linked Care system for Chemotherapy (TLC-Chemo Alert) Seven symptoms (nausea and vomiting, fatigue, trouble sleeping, sore mouth, fever, feeling blue, feeling anxious) Exit interview | TLC-Chemo Alert | Patients asked to report daily during the cycle and the alerts were sent to providers | Doctors (n=2) | Yes | Patients trained (10 minutes TLC orientation) | ** | ** | √ |
Velikova et al. (2004) [36] | UK (Cancer Research UK Clinical Centre – Leeds) | RCT: Intervention /control-attention/control in a ratio of 2:1:1 | 286 cancer outpatients attending a large cancer centre of a teaching hospital | Patient HRQoL (FACT-G) Discussion of HRQoL issues in consultation Medical actions (decisions on cancer treatment, symptomatic/supportive treatment, investigations and referrals) Non-medical actions(advice on lifestyle, copying and reassurance) Physician checklist assessing the clinical usefulness of PROM data | EORTC QOQ-C30 Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) | Regular clinic visit over an average of 6 months | Doctor (n=28) | No | One to one training and manual provided | *** | **** | √√√ |
Basch et al. (2005) [41] | USA (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York) | Prospective pilot study of patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms | 80 patients diagnosed with a gynaecologic malignancy starting a new chemotherapy regimen | Pattern of use of a Self-reported online Symptom Track and Reporting (STAR) system Patient impression of such system based on an exit questionnaire survey Clinician feedback (through survey and team debriefing) | Symptom Track and Reporting (STAR) based on NCI CATAE system | Any clinic visits during 8-wk study period (mean=3, range 1–6) , also possible log in at home during the period | Doctors and study team (n=unreported) | Yes | Training provide to patients but unreported to staff | ** | ** | √ |
Boyes et al. (2006) [35] | Australia (Centre for Health Research & Psycho-oncology, University of Newcastle) | Pilot controlled trial: Intervention /control | 80 cancer outpatients attending one cancer centre | Patient symptoms Patient anxiety/depression(HADS) Patient needs (Supportive Care Needs Survey[SCNS] Acceptability of intervention to patient and doctors | Symptoms, HADS SCNS | 1st consultation – 100% patients: 2nd: 83%; 3rd: 71%; 4th: 60% | Doctors (n=4) | List of patients needs accompanied by suggestions for appropriate referral | None | ** | *** | √√ |
Hoeskstra et al. (2006) [42] | Netherlands (Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam) | RCT: Intervention group with symptom monitoring / control | 146 palliative cancer patients recruited through two hospitals and local GPs | 10 symptoms from the Symptom Monitor Severity of the reported symptom (0–10 score) | Symptom Monitor Extensive Questionnaire | Weekly self-assessed Symptom Monitor at home; Extensive questionnaire every 2-month | GPs (98 times) and medical specialists(96 times) | No | No | ** | *** | √√ |
Korniblith et al. (2006) [43] | USA (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston) | RCT : Telephone Monitoring (TM) versus TM+Education Material (EM) | 192 cancer patients with advanced disease and receiving active treatment | EORTC-QLQ-30 HADS | EORTC-QLQ-30ǂ
| Once a month over 6 months | Ontological nurses | Yes | Yes | *** | **** | √√√ |
HADS | ||||||||||||
MOS-SS | ||||||||||||
GDS (short form) | ||||||||||||
QARSQ-PH | ||||||||||||
UMPSI | ||||||||||||
GSRE | ||||||||||||
Patient Satisfaction with the Research Program BOMC test; | ||||||||||||
Basch et al. (2007) [44] | USA (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York) | Prospective pilot study of a patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms | 107 patients diagnosed with thoracic gynaecologic malignancy starting a new chemotherapy regimen | Feasibility/Pattern of use of a Self-reported online Symptom Track and Reporting (STAR) system Patient satisfaction survey (an exit questionnaire survey) Nursing survey (through an exit survey) | Symptom Track and Reporting (STAR) based on NCI CATAE system | Any clinic visits during 42-wk study period (mean=12, range 1–40) , also possible log in at home during the period | Nurses and study team (n=unreported) | No | Training provide to patients but unreported to staff | ** | ** | √ |
Rosenbloom et al. (2007) [34] | USA (Center on Outcomes, Research and Education, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare | RCT: Structured interview and discussion / assessment control / standard care | 213 patients with advanced breast, lung or colorectal cancer | Patient HRQoL (Functioning Living Index – Cancer [FLIC]) Patient affect (Brief Profile of Mood States [Brief POMS]) Patient satisfaction [PSQ-III] Clinical treatment changes as reported by nurse (supportive care changes, referrals, ‘other’ clinical changes and changes in standard dose of chemotherapy as a result of PROs) | FACT-G and a single item asking patients whether a particular symptom or problem was better than, worse than, or as expected | Clinic visits at baseline ,and 1, 2,3 and 6 months | Treating nurses (n=not reported) | No | No | *** | **** | √√√ |
Weaver et al. (2007) [45] | UK (Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust) | A pilot study of novel mobile phone technology | 6 colon cancer patients | Questionnaire on symptoms derived from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading system | Questionnaire derived from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading system | Twice daily during the chemotherapy circle (one morning, one evening) | Nurses (n= not reported) | Yes | Yes | ** | ** | √ |
Butt et al.(2008) [46] | USA (Center on Outcomes, Research and Education (CORE), Evanton Northwestern Healthcare) | Prospective study to explore the longitudinal screening and management of fatigue, pain, and emotional distress | 99 cancer patients with solid tumor of lymphoma undergoing cancer undergoing cancer treatment | FACT-G FACT-Fatigue subscale Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) HADS Structured interview with patients on HRQL and symptom management | FACT-G FACT-Fatigue subscale Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) HADS | Baseline, 1 month and 2 months after the baseline | Doctors and nurses | ? | ? | ** | ** | √ |
Given et al. (2008) [47] | USA( Michigan State University) | RCT: Nurse-Administrated Symptom Management (NASM) vs Automated Telephone Symptom Management (ATSM) intervention | 129 breast cancer patients | Outcomes measured at 10–16 wks: 15 symptoms (0–10 scale) Responses & Non-responses of symptoms Time to response | 15 symptoms (0–10 scale) Severity of the symptoms | 6 contacts or self-reporting (1–4 wk, 6wk, 8wk) | Nurses or ATSM system | Yes | Yes | ** | **** | √√√ |
Hilarius et al. (2008) [48] | Netherland (Hospital Pharmacy, Red Cross Hospital, Beverwijk) | A sequential cohort design with repeated measures to evaluate the use of HRQL assessments in daily clinical oncology nursing practice | 10 nurses and 219 patients cancer patients with either adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy in a community hospital | Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Information Functional Health Assessment (COOPcharts) Patient Management extracted from medical record Patient satisfaction (an exit survey based on PSQ, Form II) Patients’ self-reported HRQL (SF-36, FACT-BCS, FACT-C, FACT-L) Nurse and patient evaluation of the intervention (an exit survey) | EORTC QLQ-C30 EORTC QLQ-BR23 EORTC QLQ-CR38 EORTC QLQ-LC13 | Four consecutive visits after baseline for both pre (control arm) and post (intervention arm) with a two-month ‘wash-out’ period | Patients and nurses before consultations | No | Yes | *** | *** | √√ |
Mark et al. (2008) [49] | USA (Thomson Healthcare, Washington DC) | A cross-sectional survey of the of both patients’ and health professionals’ experience; A before-after patient chart review | 100 cancer patients and 92 health professionals on the experience of The Patient Assessment, Care and Education (PACE) System, including PCM instrument and an education component | Questionnaire survey of 102 providers The patients satisfaction survey (n=100) including 8-item on PCM 200 patient chart reviews (100 charts before and 100 charts after the PACE system) | PCM An education component (not reported in this study) | Each visit to clinic | Clinicians (n=unreported) | No | ? | ** | *** | √√ |
Kearney et al. (2009) [50] | UK (Cancer Care Research Centre, University of Stirling, Stirling) | RCT: Control group versus intervention group (mobile phone-based remote monitoring of symptoms) over five time points | 56 patients with lung, breast or colorectal cancer for each group (total 112 patients) | Paper version of electronic, Mobile phone-based Advanced Symptom Management Systems (ASyMS©) based on Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading system and the Chemotherapy Symptom Assessment Scale | Mobile phone-based (ASyMS©) including chemotherapy-related morbidity of six common symptoms (nausea, vomiting, fatigue, mucositis, hand-foot syndrome and diarrhoea) | Five times including baseline and each of four chemotherapy cycles over a period of 14 days | Doctors only (n=unreported) | Yes | Yes | ** | **** | √√ |
Carlson et al. (2010) [51] | Canada (Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Alberta) | RCT: minimum screening (distress) / full screening / Triage : full screening + referring to appropriate services | 585 breast cancer patients + 549 lung cancer patients | Patient distress at 3-month follow-up; Depression and anxiety at 3-month follow-up | Minimum screening: Distress thermometer (DT) Full screening: DT + Psychological scan for cancer part C (PSSCAN) | Baseline | Screening team member (n=unreported) | Yes | Yes | **** | **** | √√√ |
Dinkel et al. (2010) [52] | German (Department of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technische University Munchen) | Paired comparison : a computerised and a paper version of Stress Index Radio Oncology (SIRO) tool Prospective survey | 177 cancer patients in study 1, 273 cancer patients in study 2 (n=142 for computerised version and n=131 for paper version of SIRO) 27 Patients, urses/radiographs and 15 physicians evaluated the screening procedure | Agreement between computer and paper version of SIRO Patient satisfaction; Time need for both modes; Perceived utility; Perceived impact on communication; Perceived impact on patient outcome | SIRO | Any visit | Doctors and nurses (n=unreported) | No | No | *** | ** | √√ |
Halkett et al. (2010) [11] | Australian (WA Centre for Cancer and Palliative Care, Curtin University) | Pilot study of using computer touch-screen technology to asses psychological distress in patients | 60 patients with various gynaecological cancers | Patient satisfaction with both touch-screen and paper questionnaire; Perceived utility of both modes by patients and health professionals | EORTC QLQ-C30 HADS The Supportive Care Needs Scale The Distress Thermometer Follow questionnaire survey on perceived utility of both modes | Once | Nurses and doctors | Yes | Yes | * | ** | √ |
Ruland et al. (2011) [53] | Norway (Centre for Shared Decision Making and Nursing Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo) | RCT: a computer-assisted, interactive tailored assessment (ITPA) with feedback vs ITPA only in oncology practice | 145 patients treated for leukaemia or lymphoma | Number of patient symptoms and problems addressed Changes in symptom distress Changes in patients’ need for symptom management support over time, SF-36, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Medical Outcome Study Social Support Scale (MOS – SS) | Choice ITPA(19 symptoms (0–4 scale on bothersome) and a severity scale of 0–10) | Every inpatient admission with up to four follow-up visits | Doctors and nurses (n=unreported) | No (as see appropriate) | Yes | *** | **** | √√√ |
Velikova et al. (2010) [54] | UK (Cancer Research UK Clinical Centre – Leeds) | RCT: Intervention/control-attention/control in a ratio of 2:1:1 | 286 cancer patients commencing treatment at the Medical Oncology Clinic at St James Hospital | Medical Care Questionnaire (MCQ): 15-item three subscales: Communication, Coordination, Patient preferences Satisfaction with care Patients’ and physicians’ evaluation of the intervention K-index (Continuity of care: K=(number of visits – number of doctors)/(number of visits −1). | EORTC QOQ-C30 Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) | Regular clinic visit over an average of 6 months | Doctor (n=28) | No | One to one training and manual provided | *** | **** | √√√ |
Bainbridge et al.(2011) [55] | Canada (Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario) | Survey on the utility of | 128 nurses, physicians, and allied health professionals | Perceptions of use and utility of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) adopted by Ontario’s cancer centres since 2007 | ESAS | Every clinic visit | Doctors and nurses | Yes | Yes | * | * | √ |
Berry et al. (2011) [56] | USA (Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston) | RCT: Intervention / Control | 660 cancer patients with various cancer diagnoses and stages at two institutions of a comprehensive cancer centre | 1.Audio-recorded content of all communication between clinicians, patients and accompanying friends or family members at each T2 visit (4–6 wks after the treatment) | Patient reported symptoms and quality-of-life (SQLIs) from the Electronic Self-Report Assessment-Cancer (ESRA-C) | Every clinic visit during the study period | Doctors (n=76 principle physicians and other) or incorporated into charts (n=unreported) | No | Yes | *** | **** | √√√ |
2.Clinic visit duration | ||||||||||||
3. Physician exit questionnaire survey | ||||||||||||
Cleeland et al. (2011) [20] | USA (MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas) | RCT: e-mail alert of symptom to patients’ clinical team versus no e-mail alert | 79 lung cancer patients receiving thoracotomy | 1. Four targeted symptom: pain, distress, disturbed sleep, and shortness of breath, constipation (no fatigue as no effective response) 2. MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) at follow-up clinic visit 3. An exit questionnaire survey | Automated telephone calls (IVR system): MDASI (13 common cancer related symptoms) | Twice weekly, up to 4 wks after discharge | Nurses (n=unreported) | Yes | Training to patients provided | ** | **** | √√ |
Takeuchi et al. (2011) [57] | UK (St James’s Institute of Oncology, Leeds) | Longitudinal study of data as part of Velikova et al. (2004, 2010) RCT | 286 cancer patients commencing treatment at the Medical Oncology Clinic at St James Hospital | Audio-recorded content of Patient-physician communication: Longitudinal impact of PRO intervention; dynamics of communication; association between severity of symptoms/functions and clinic discussion | EORTC QOQ-C30 Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) | Four consecutive visits from baseline | Doctor (n=28) | No | One to one training and manual provided | *** | **** | √√√ |
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Data extraction and quality assessment
Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Global (GRADE) | |
---|---|---|---|
Decision Components | Subject of public reporting (or study population) and study participants (sample) | Types of study (i.e. study designs) | Components from Domain 1 & 2 as well as implementation and adherence to intervention, dose–response gradient, precision and validity of the outcomes, uncertainty of direction of the results. |
Rating criteria | How well does the study sample represent the study population? | How strong is the study design both in terms of its external and internal validity? | How much weight does the current study add to the evidence-base taking into considerations of all the components above? |
Symbol used & categories of rating | 1*: no overlap | 1*: weakest design | √: little weight |
2*: modest overlap | 2*: moderate design | √√: moderate weight | |
3*: large overlap | 3*: strong design | √√√: great weight | |
4*: complete overlap | 4*: strongest design |
Studies | Doctor-patient communication | Monitor treatment response | Detect unrecognised problems | Changes to patient health behaviour | Changes to patient management | Improved patient satisfaction | Improved health outcomes | Feasibility of the implementation | Moderating and subgroup effect |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trowbridge et al. (1997)[39] | ++ | ++ | + (but no change in PMI) | +++ | |||||
Tazenzer et al. (2000)[33] | +++ | ++ | + | - | +++ | ||||
McLachlan et al. (2001)[38] | -(no time differences in consultation between two arms) | -(only 37% patients receiving anticancer therapy at baseline) | - | - | +++ | + (on high BDI score subgroup) | |||
Detmar et al. (2002)[37] | +++ (10 out of 12 HRoL measures, especially on social functioning and fatigue) | ++ | + (increased patient counselling) +( 25% with family members and primary care physicians) | + (emotional support) | + (SF-36) | +++ | + (before-after improvement by intervention group) | ||
++ (information sharing & communication) | |||||||||
Mooney et al. (2002)[16] | +++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | ||||
Velikova et al. (2004)[36] | +++ | ++ (64% encounters involving referring to HRoL by physicians) | -(possible due to simple coding between two arms) +(contributed to patient management in 11% of encounters intervention arm). | ++(overall quality of life and emotional functioning) | ++ (response rate 70%) | + (more discussion of HRoL subgroup had better outcome within intervention group) | |||
Basch et al. (2005)[41] | +++ | + | ++ | +++ | + | ++ (65% patient log in before any verbal encouragement) | |||
Boyes et al. (2006)[35] | + (50% oncologists in intervention group talked with patients) | - | ++ (fewer deliberating symptoms) -(anxiety and depression) | + | - | ||||
Hoekstra et al. (2006)[42] | +/−(Only 18% patients used it enhancing communication) | - | ++ (lower prevalence in 9 out of 10 symptoms; deteriorated less in 8 out of 10 symptoms) | + | The beneficial effects were pronounced in the deteriorated group. | ||||
Korniblith et al. (2006)[43] | +++ (both arms) | ++ (more from TM+EM arm) | ++ (both arms) | ++ (better in TM+EM arm –reduction of psychological distress) | ++ | ||||
Basch et al. (2007)[44] | + | ++ | ++ (can be improved through reminder) | ||||||
Rosenbloom et al. (2007)[34] | -(Possible Ceiling effect) | - | - | - | ++ | No effect even among the most highly distressed patients | |||
Weaver et al. (2007)[45] | + (nurse-patient communication) | + | + | + | + | + | ++ | ||
Butt et al. (2008)[46] | ++ | + | + | + | ++ | ++ | |||
Given et al. (2008)[47] | + | + | ++ (ATSM more likely to generated responses in symptom management and required less time to do so) | ++ | + (Compared with patients receiving combination chemotherapy protocols, those patients treated with single agent had greater response and shorter time to response) | ||||
Hilarius et al. (2008)[48] | ++ | + | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | |||
Mark et al. (2008)[49] | ++ | + | + | + | ++ | ++ | |||
Kearney et al. (2009)[50] | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ (Fatigue) | +++ | |||
Carlson et al. (2010)[51] | +++ (distress) ++ (decreased depression and anxiety related to referral to services) | +++ | |||||||
Dinkel et al. (2010)[52] | + | + | + | ++ | |||||
Halkett et al. (2010)[11] | + (around 25% of doctors) | + (10% patients reported changed outcomes) | + (patients is generally happy with both methods) -(Health professionals found some issues) | +/− (some issues identified but nothing fundamental and patients were generally happy) | |||||
Ruland et al. (2010)[53] | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | |||||
Velikova et al. (2010)[54] | ++ | (no difference in coordination of care & ‘preferences to see usual doctor’ subscale) | ++(86% in intervention vs 29% in the attention-control group) | ++ | |||||
Bainbridge et al. (2011) [55] | + | + | + | ++ | + 89% of nurses and 55% of physicians referred to the ESAS in clinics ‘always’ or ‘ most of the time’ | ||||
Berry et al. (2011)[56] | ++ (25% physician explicitly referred to SQLI summary) | ++ | ++ (the treatment effect on communication is evident on over threshold group on cognitive function, impact on sex and social function) | ||||||
Cleeland et al. (2011)[20] | ++ | + | + | + | + | ++ | ++ | ||
Takeuchi et al. (2011)[57] | ++ (on symptom but not function) | ++ |
Results
Overview of study quality
Overview of study findings
Impact on patient-provider communication
Impact on monitoring treatment response
Impact on detecting unrecognised problems
Impact on changes to patient health behaviour
Impact on changes to patient management
Impact on patient satisfaction
Impact on health outcomes
Impact on quality improvement, transparency, accountability and public reporting, and on better system performances (monitoring, planning, financing, evaluating, responding)
Overall strength and direction of evidence
Results | Strength and direction of evidence |
---|---|
Patient-provider communication | +++ |
Monitor treatment response | ++ |
Detect unrecognised problems | ++ |
Changes to patient health behaviour | n/a |
Changes to patient management | + |
Improved patient satisfaction | +++ |
Improved health outcomes | +/0 |
Strong & effective quality improvement | n/a |
Increased transparency, accountability, public reporting | n/a |
Better system performance (monitoring, planning, financing, evaluating, responding) | n/a |