Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Care: Opportunities and Roadblocks from the Clinician Perspective: A Scoping Review
Author(s)
Ipek Ozer Stillman, MBA, MSc1, Boyle Brandon, MSc1, Karen Lencoski, MSc1, Meni Styliadou, BA2, Jeff Muir, MSc3, Grammati Sarri, MSc, PhD4.
1Takeda, Boston, MA, USA, 2Takeda, Zurich, Switzerland, 3Cytel, Toronto, ON, Canada, 4Executive Research Principal, Cytel, London, United Kingdom.
1Takeda, Boston, MA, USA, 2Takeda, Zurich, Switzerland, 3Cytel, Toronto, ON, Canada, 4Executive Research Principal, Cytel, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: Patient-focused healthcare and shared decision-making have become the two central pillars in healthcare delivery. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measurement in clinical care was originally included as a system performance indicator but lately has emerged as a potential driver for patient-centered outcome improvement. This scoping review summarized the benefits of and barriers to the use of PROs in healthcare from the clinician perspective, across disease areas and settings.
METHODS: Database searches were conducted in November 2024 of Embase and MEDLINE for articles from 2014 onward, supplemented by snowballing and searches of organization websites. Selection criteria were not restricted by study design or geographies; any publication considering the physician impact (positive, negative) including barriers and facilitators to PRO integration in clinical practice was included. Thematic analysis was conducted across the following topics: clinical applications of PRO integration, clinician-, and system-related barriers. A trained reviewer performed screening and extraction, which was validated by a senior reviewer.
RESULTS: In total, 1,303 unique articles were screened at the title/abstract level, 14 at full-text level and 14 additional articles were identified through snowballing. Thirteen articles were ultimately included (data-driven analyses [n=4], theoretical analyses, reviews [n=3 each], commentaries [n=2], expert survey [n=1]). PRO integration in routine clinical care was context and health system dependent, largely contingent on buy-in from physicians. Consistent findings showed the positive impact of PROs on improving clinician-patient communication, monitoring of treatment responses, and detecting new problems. Clinicians were mainly concerned about the feasibility of routine PRO integrated use, lack of training (awareness, interpretation), complexity of data collection, clinical disruption, and tension among stakeholders about their intended use.
CONCLUSIONS: Consistent findings in this review showcased the potential of PROs to improve patient care through their routine integration in clinical care. Contextual differences and clinical factors may affect the intended outcomes of PRO integration in clinical care.
METHODS: Database searches were conducted in November 2024 of Embase and MEDLINE for articles from 2014 onward, supplemented by snowballing and searches of organization websites. Selection criteria were not restricted by study design or geographies; any publication considering the physician impact (positive, negative) including barriers and facilitators to PRO integration in clinical practice was included. Thematic analysis was conducted across the following topics: clinical applications of PRO integration, clinician-, and system-related barriers. A trained reviewer performed screening and extraction, which was validated by a senior reviewer.
RESULTS: In total, 1,303 unique articles were screened at the title/abstract level, 14 at full-text level and 14 additional articles were identified through snowballing. Thirteen articles were ultimately included (data-driven analyses [n=4], theoretical analyses, reviews [n=3 each], commentaries [n=2], expert survey [n=1]). PRO integration in routine clinical care was context and health system dependent, largely contingent on buy-in from physicians. Consistent findings showed the positive impact of PROs on improving clinician-patient communication, monitoring of treatment responses, and detecting new problems. Clinicians were mainly concerned about the feasibility of routine PRO integrated use, lack of training (awareness, interpretation), complexity of data collection, clinical disruption, and tension among stakeholders about their intended use.
CONCLUSIONS: Consistent findings in this review showcased the potential of PROs to improve patient care through their routine integration in clinical care. Contextual differences and clinical factors may affect the intended outcomes of PRO integration in clinical care.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
PCR16
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas