TY - JOUR AU - Roberts, Natasha Anne AU - Pelecanos, Anita AU - Alexander, Kimberly AU - Wyld, David AU - Janda, Monika PY - 2024 DA - 2024/8/27 TI - Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Medical Oncology Setting (the iPROMOS Study): Type II Hybrid Implementation Study JO - J Med Internet Res SP - e55841 VL - 26 KW - implementation science KW - iPARIHS KW - clinical practice KW - intervention KW - implementation KW - facilitator KW - facilitation KW - patient-reported outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures KW - oncology KW - symptom KW - symptoms KW - detection KW - investigate KW - service KW - services KW - clinic KW - clinics KW - Australia KW - binary logistic models KW - regression model KW - regression models KW - patient KW - patients KW - supportive care AB - Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated that patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can improve mortality and morbidity outcomes when used in clinical practice. Objective: This study aimed to prospectively investigate the implementation of PROMs in routine oncology. Outcomes measured included improved symptom detection, clinical response to symptom information, and health service outcomes. Methods: Two of 12 eligible clinics were randomized to implement symptom PROMs in a medical oncology outpatient department in Australia. Randomization was carried out at the clinic level. Patients in control clinics continued with usual care; those in intervention clinics completed a symptom PROM at presentation. This was a pilot study investigating symptom detection, using binary logistic models, and clinical response to PROMs investigated using multiple regression models. Results: A total of 461 patient encounters were included, consisting of 242 encounters in the control and 222 in the intervention condition. Patients in these clinics most commonly had head and neck, lung, prostate, breast, or colorectal cancer and were seen in the clinic for surveillance and oral or systemic treatments for curative, metastatic, or palliative cancer care pathways. Compared with control encounters, the proportion of symptoms detected increased in intervention encounters (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.99-1.11; P=.08). The odds of receiving supportive care, demonstrated by nonroutine allied health review, increased in the intervention compared with control encounters (odds ratio 3.54, 95% CI 1.26-9.90; P=.02). Conclusions: Implementation of PROMs in routine care did not significantly improve symptom detection but increased the likelihood of nonroutine allied health reviews for supportive care. Larger studies are needed to investigate health service outcomes. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000398202; https://tinyurl.com/3cxbemy4 SN - 1438-8871 UR - https://www.jmir.org/2024/1/e55841 UR - https://doi.org/10.2196/55841 UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39190468 DO - 10.2196/55841 ID - info:doi/10.2196/55841 ER -