Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42207384›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026

Implementation of patient-reported outcomes in personalized lung cancer care: a qualitative study from the perspective of patients and health care providers.

Vanessa Mildenberger, Dusan Simic, Leonie Eilers, Anika Kästner, Marie Naumann, Anna Rasokat, Anna Kron, Daniel Armbrust, Anna Spier, Neeltje van den Berg and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Vanessa MildenbergerFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. vanessa.mildenberger@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2526-0979
Dusan SimicFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7325-9481
Leonie EilersKCM KompetenzCentrum für Medizinoekonomie, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management gemeinnützige Gesellschaft mbH, Essen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-1190-6764
Anika KästnerInstitute for Community Medicine, Section Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1625-4836
Marie NaumannFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8123-5407
Anna RasokatFaculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Aachen Bonn Cologne, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-7850-6374
Anna KronFaculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Aachen Bonn Cologne, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3047-6486
Daniel ArmbrustFaculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Aachen Bonn Cologne, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Anna SpierFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-8256-9756
Neeltje van den BergInstitute for Community Medicine, Section Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6965-0544
Wolfgang HoffmannInstitute for Community Medicine, Section Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6359-8797
Jürgen WolfFaculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Aachen Bonn Cologne, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3869-4736
Florian KronKCM KompetenzCentrum für Medizinoekonomie, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management gemeinnützige Gesellschaft mbH, Essen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4907-7490
Stephanie StockFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1726-9300

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in personalized lung cancer care aim to facilitate a targeted therapeutic management approach. This study explores the implementation of PROs as an intervention component within a precision medicine program, with a focus on identifying facilitating factors and barriers from the perspectives of health care providers (HCPs) and patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODOLOGY: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with HCPs and NSCLC patients over two rounds in 2023 and 2024, respectively. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The framework of Grol and Wensing was employed, which divides healthcare into six dimensions.

resultsThe structured documentation of symptoms and quality of life constitutes a benefit in that it enables intervention by the treating physician. From the perspective of HCPs, incorporating PROs into daily clinical practice was associated with considerable organizational challenges and the need for logins into an additional system to access the results. This required a substantial investment of time and personnel, which resulted in a lack of acceptance. The predominant motivation of patients who participated in the PRO questionnaires was a desire to contribute to scientific research. In general, the regular administration of the questionnaire has proven unfeasible for the NSCLC cohort, given the high disease burden often experienced in stage IV.

conclusionsDespite implementation challenges, PROs can improve symptom monitoring, communication, and patient-centered care in advanced NSCLC when key barriers are addressed.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungHealth PersonnelLung NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPrecision MedicineAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesFormative evaluationImplementationLung cancerNon-small-cell lung cancerPatient-centered carePatient-reported outcomesPersonalized lung cancer therapyQualitative interviews

Identifiers

PMID42207384
PMCPMC13219689

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.