Skip to main content

Table 5 The impact and effect sizes of the studies on patients, care providers and organisations*

From: A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting

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)        ++  
  1. Note: +++ very strong effect; ++ strong effect; + some effect; +/- uncertain effect; - No effect; blank : untested or reported;
  2. *: Impacts on quality improvement, increased transparency, accountability, public reporting, better population and system performance (monitoring, planning, financing, evaluating, etc) were not listed due to lack of data.
Back to article page