Exploring Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Enhance Patient-Centered Care: Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Systematic symptom management is a crucial component in patient-centered cancer care. Despite the development of numerous electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) tools, integrating these tools into clinical practice remains challenging. Engaging key stakeholders, including patients, in the development of ePROM tools is pivotal to fostering the adoption of such tools. As part of an innovation and implementation study aimed at enhancing efficiency and patient-centered care (PCC) through the development of digital PCC pathways, we explored the perspectives of patients with cancer on current clinical practice regarding symptom management and PCC, as well as their needs and preferences related to ePROMs. Objective: This study aims to explore the perspectives of patients with cancer on PCC and symptom management, including their experience with current clinical practice and their views on how ePROMs might enhance patient-centered follow-up. Methods: A 2-stage qualitative design was used. In stage 1, semistructured individual interviews were conducted to gain an in-depth understanding of patients' experiences with current clinical practice, including perceived challenges and unmet needs. Stage 2 involved structured interviews to further explore patients' perspectives on the potential role of ePROMs in enhancing patient-centered follow-up. Results: A total of 10 patients were included in the study, participating in either or both stages. Two main themes were developed through a reflexive thematic analysis process: (1) symptom management in the shadow of disease-centered care, and (2) ePROMs: bridging holistic care and disease management. Theme 1 highlighted how patients made sense of symptom management within a health care context primarily focused on disease treatment and progression. Their narratives revealed that biomedical concerns often dominated clinical encounters, while patients' broader lived experiences and symptom-related needs were marginalized. Patients shared an understanding that it was their own responsibility to redirect the focus of clinical consultations toward symptoms. While they generally expressed satisfaction with the care received, they also described a sense of unmet needs that remained unaddressed. The second theme explored how patients made sense of the potential role of an ePROM tool in supporting more patient-centered cancer care. Their accounts revealed both perceived barriers and facilitators to its use, shaped by the expectations and needs that contrasted with current clinical practices. Central to this was a belief, emerging through engagement with the conceptual tool's functionalities, that it could enable a more holistic approach to care, extending beyond physical symptom to encompass the lived experience of cancer. Conclusions: Patients often felt personally responsible for ensuring that their symptoms were addressed, indicating shortcomings in follow-up and communication. ePROMs were identified as a promising tool to strengthen PCC by amplifying patient voices and enabling more holistic and responsive follow-up. Integrating ePROMs into routine care may improve symptom visibility, foster shared understanding between patients and health care professionals, and support more equitable care delivery.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».