Qualitative analysis of practicing oncologists' attitudes and experiences regarding collection of patient-reported outcomes

Reshma Jagsi, Anne Chiang, Blase N. Polite, Bruno C. Medeiros, Kristen McNiff, Amy P. Abernethy, Robin Zon, Patrick Loehrer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: There is growing interest in incorporating routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into cancer care. Practicing oncologists are a stakeholder group whose views are not well characterized. Methods: We developed an interview guide after literature review and in-depth interviews with leaders in the field. We conducted 45-minute semistructured interviews with a diverse sample of medical oncologists identified through affiliation with the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative or a minority-based Community Clinical Oncology Program until thematic saturation. Multiple analysts independently reviewed and thematically coded verbatim transcripts. Results: Seventeen interviews were conducted with oncologists from 15 states. Emergent themes included variable understanding and experience with PROs. There was enthusiasm for the potential of PROs to improve the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter. Fundamental concerns included information overload, possibility of identifying problems without access to intervention, depersonalization of the physician-patient encounter, cost, and inefficiency. Barriers identified included the need for buy-in from other stakeholders in the practice, lack of appropriate referral resources, staffing needs, and technology concerns. Few identified patient compliance, data sharing/privacy, or medical liability as a major barrier to implementation. Conclusion: Practicing oncologists had variable understanding of the details of PROs but, when introduced to the concept, recognized utility in improving the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter if implemented properly. The time is right to begin pilot testing such measures with community oncologists so they can lend their expertise to national discussions on which measures to use and how best to use them.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Oncology Practice
Volume9
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Interviews
Depersonalization
Legal Liability
Medical Oncology
Information Dissemination
Privacy
Patient Compliance
Referral and Consultation
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Oncologists
Technology
Physicians
Costs and Cost Analysis
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Oncology(nursing)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Qualitative analysis of practicing oncologists' attitudes and experiences regarding collection of patient-reported outcomes. / Jagsi, Reshma; Chiang, Anne; Polite, Blase N.; Medeiros, Bruno C.; McNiff, Kristen; Abernethy, Amy P.; Zon, Robin; Loehrer, Patrick.

In: Journal of Oncology Practice, Vol. 9, No. 6, 2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jagsi, Reshma ; Chiang, Anne ; Polite, Blase N. ; Medeiros, Bruno C. ; McNiff, Kristen ; Abernethy, Amy P. ; Zon, Robin ; Loehrer, Patrick. / Qualitative analysis of practicing oncologists' attitudes and experiences regarding collection of patient-reported outcomes. In: Journal of Oncology Practice. 2013 ; Vol. 9, No. 6.
@article{3900ffa3773f4d69b3a32d3a1f832eb3,
title = "Qualitative analysis of practicing oncologists' attitudes and experiences regarding collection of patient-reported outcomes",
abstract = "Purpose: There is growing interest in incorporating routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into cancer care. Practicing oncologists are a stakeholder group whose views are not well characterized. Methods: We developed an interview guide after literature review and in-depth interviews with leaders in the field. We conducted 45-minute semistructured interviews with a diverse sample of medical oncologists identified through affiliation with the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative or a minority-based Community Clinical Oncology Program until thematic saturation. Multiple analysts independently reviewed and thematically coded verbatim transcripts. Results: Seventeen interviews were conducted with oncologists from 15 states. Emergent themes included variable understanding and experience with PROs. There was enthusiasm for the potential of PROs to improve the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter. Fundamental concerns included information overload, possibility of identifying problems without access to intervention, depersonalization of the physician-patient encounter, cost, and inefficiency. Barriers identified included the need for buy-in from other stakeholders in the practice, lack of appropriate referral resources, staffing needs, and technology concerns. Few identified patient compliance, data sharing/privacy, or medical liability as a major barrier to implementation. Conclusion: Practicing oncologists had variable understanding of the details of PROs but, when introduced to the concept, recognized utility in improving the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter if implemented properly. The time is right to begin pilot testing such measures with community oncologists so they can lend their expertise to national discussions on which measures to use and how best to use them.",
author = "Reshma Jagsi and Anne Chiang and Polite, {Blase N.} and Medeiros, {Bruno C.} and Kristen McNiff and Abernethy, {Amy P.} and Robin Zon and Patrick Loehrer",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1200/JOP.2012.000823",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "Journal of Oncology Practice",
issn = "1554-7477",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Qualitative analysis of practicing oncologists' attitudes and experiences regarding collection of patient-reported outcomes

AU - Jagsi, Reshma

AU - Chiang, Anne

AU - Polite, Blase N.

AU - Medeiros, Bruno C.

AU - McNiff, Kristen

AU - Abernethy, Amy P.

AU - Zon, Robin

AU - Loehrer, Patrick

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: There is growing interest in incorporating routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into cancer care. Practicing oncologists are a stakeholder group whose views are not well characterized. Methods: We developed an interview guide after literature review and in-depth interviews with leaders in the field. We conducted 45-minute semistructured interviews with a diverse sample of medical oncologists identified through affiliation with the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative or a minority-based Community Clinical Oncology Program until thematic saturation. Multiple analysts independently reviewed and thematically coded verbatim transcripts. Results: Seventeen interviews were conducted with oncologists from 15 states. Emergent themes included variable understanding and experience with PROs. There was enthusiasm for the potential of PROs to improve the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter. Fundamental concerns included information overload, possibility of identifying problems without access to intervention, depersonalization of the physician-patient encounter, cost, and inefficiency. Barriers identified included the need for buy-in from other stakeholders in the practice, lack of appropriate referral resources, staffing needs, and technology concerns. Few identified patient compliance, data sharing/privacy, or medical liability as a major barrier to implementation. Conclusion: Practicing oncologists had variable understanding of the details of PROs but, when introduced to the concept, recognized utility in improving the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter if implemented properly. The time is right to begin pilot testing such measures with community oncologists so they can lend their expertise to national discussions on which measures to use and how best to use them.

AB - Purpose: There is growing interest in incorporating routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into cancer care. Practicing oncologists are a stakeholder group whose views are not well characterized. Methods: We developed an interview guide after literature review and in-depth interviews with leaders in the field. We conducted 45-minute semistructured interviews with a diverse sample of medical oncologists identified through affiliation with the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative or a minority-based Community Clinical Oncology Program until thematic saturation. Multiple analysts independently reviewed and thematically coded verbatim transcripts. Results: Seventeen interviews were conducted with oncologists from 15 states. Emergent themes included variable understanding and experience with PROs. There was enthusiasm for the potential of PROs to improve the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter. Fundamental concerns included information overload, possibility of identifying problems without access to intervention, depersonalization of the physician-patient encounter, cost, and inefficiency. Barriers identified included the need for buy-in from other stakeholders in the practice, lack of appropriate referral resources, staffing needs, and technology concerns. Few identified patient compliance, data sharing/privacy, or medical liability as a major barrier to implementation. Conclusion: Practicing oncologists had variable understanding of the details of PROs but, when introduced to the concept, recognized utility in improving the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter if implemented properly. The time is right to begin pilot testing such measures with community oncologists so they can lend their expertise to national discussions on which measures to use and how best to use them.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84896295265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84896295265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JOP.2012.000823

DO - 10.1200/JOP.2012.000823

M3 - Article

C2 - 23943890

AN - SCOPUS:84896295265

VL - 9

JO - Journal of Oncology Practice

JF - Journal of Oncology Practice

SN - 1554-7477

IS - 6

ER -