ArticlePalliative medicine reports2025
Optimizing Patient Engagement with Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Across the Cancer Continuum: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Palliative medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) enhance patient-centered care but routine implementation in oncology settings remains challenging. This study seeks to explore patients' experiences with routine PROM integration within a health care setting with employed strategies to maximize uptake and inclusivity. Methods: A qualitative study employing a phenomenological approach was conducted at the National Cancer Centre Singapore. Seven breast cancer patients receiving routine screening using the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DTPL) as part of a larger supportive care program were purposively sampled. Semi-structured interviews explored how implementation strategies influenced patients' experiences with PROM usability, accessibility, and perceived impact. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Participants perceived the DTPL as a meaningful PROM that validated their emotions but highlighted that presentation formats greatly influenced perceived simplicity of the tool. While multilingual and hybrid formats improved accessibility, digital literacy and cognitive burden remained as barriers. Education pamphlets provided initial awareness, but sustained engagement was impeded by a lack of time, reminders, and a conducive environment. PROMs were most useful during active treatment when symptoms fluctuated, yet frequent completion led to response fatigue. Timely responses to PROMs reinforced engagement, particularly when linked to referrals or symptom management. Some participants felt that formal PROM reviews by oncologists were unnecessary due to time constraints. Conclusion: Successful PROM implementation requires balancing simplicity, accessibility, and clinical relevance. Embedding PROMs within broader supportive care programs ensures clinical responsiveness and improves patient outcomes in oncology care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.