Healthcare Professionals’ Preferences and Perceived Barriers for Routine Assessment of Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Pediatric Oncology Practice: Moving Toward International Processes of Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice has been shown to enhance detection of health-related quality of life problems and satisfaction with care in children with cancer. This study seeks to identify which PRO information healthcare professionals (HCPs) find useful and what the perceived barriers for routinely assessing PROs are. PROCEDURE: A total of 352 pediatric HCPs (43% male) from 52 countries completed a semistructured online 28-item questionnaire. Descriptive statistics (percentages) were used to identify highly important PRO information and perceived barriers. HCPs' perceived barriers were compared according to gender, years of work experience, and country using a Fishers exact test. RESULTS: The five highest ranked PRO topics relevant in routine assessment by HCPs were as follows: pain (98%), feeling sad or depressed (96%), overall physical symptoms (95%), problems with therapy adherence (94%), and overall emotional issues (93%). Five lowest ranked topics were as follows: difficulties praying (50%), other spiritual concerns (55, 56, and 60%), and feeling bored (60%). Barriers for assessing PROs included: time (58%), insufficient staff (49%), logistics (32%), and financial resources (26%). Providers from developing countries more often reported barriers concerning insufficient staff, logistics, and financial resources. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs strongly value the use of physical and psychosocial PROs within pediatric oncology practice, but mainly perceive organizational barriers for routine assessment. To successfully integrate PROs, efforts should be made to address HCP-perceived barriers, such that patient-reported problems can be detected and timely referrals made.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".