US Physician Characteristics Associated With Real-World Evidence Implementation in Oncology Practice
Author(s)
Thomas Porter, MBA, MPH1, Kathleen Andersen, PhD, MSc2, Wencesley Paez, MD, MS3, Patrick Corr, EdD, MEd4, Sabrina Figueiredo, PhD, MSc5;
1George Washington University School of Medicine, PhD Student, Washington, DC, USA, 2Unaffiliated, Washington, DC, USA, 3Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 4George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA, 5George Washington School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
1George Washington University School of Medicine, PhD Student, Washington, DC, USA, 2Unaffiliated, Washington, DC, USA, 3Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 4George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA, 5George Washington School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Assess how physician characteristics (research experience, practice setting, and career stage) affect real-world evidence (RWE) utilization and confidence in clinical decision-making to inform strategies for improving oncology care.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) members using census-proportional and name-based cluster sampling. Key measures included: (1) RWE influence on clinical decisions, (2) confidence in interpreting and applying RWE versus RCT data, and (3) RWE's role in treatment selection, dosing, and outcome predictions. Median scores were computed, and differences were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Subgroup analyses compared physicians with exclusive RWE research experience (n=12) versus clinical trial PI/Sub-I experience only (n=23).
RESULTS: From 1,509 invitations, 128 complete responses were received across 39 states and DC. Prior RWE research experience significantly influenced interpretation and application of RWE (mean rank: 68.02 vs 53.94, p=0.046), while those without PI/Sub-I experience reported higher RWE reliance for treatment selection (mean rank: 80.07 vs 61.44, p=0.031). Early-career physicians showed higher RWE confidence (mean rank: 73.38 vs 52.25 vs 61.26, p=0.012), clinical decision influence (mean rank: 71.99 vs 50.64 vs 65.85, p<0.001), and outcome prediction use (mean rank: 71.99 vs 50.64 vs 65.85, p=0.021) than mid/late-career physicians. Practice setting significantly impacted RWE confidence (mean rank: 83.69 vs 65.35 vs 53.63, p=0.019), with private practice physicians higher than academic or community physicians.
CONCLUSIONS: Early-career physicians show greater RWE engagement, suggesting a shift in clinical data evaluation in oncology. Differences by research background and practice setting highlight the need for targeted solutions to broaden RWE use. Future efforts could involve changes to medical education curricula, professional development opportunities, and practical resources to improve data access and increase physician confidence, ultimately enhancing oncology care across practice settings.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) members using census-proportional and name-based cluster sampling. Key measures included: (1) RWE influence on clinical decisions, (2) confidence in interpreting and applying RWE versus RCT data, and (3) RWE's role in treatment selection, dosing, and outcome predictions. Median scores were computed, and differences were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Subgroup analyses compared physicians with exclusive RWE research experience (n=12) versus clinical trial PI/Sub-I experience only (n=23).
RESULTS: From 1,509 invitations, 128 complete responses were received across 39 states and DC. Prior RWE research experience significantly influenced interpretation and application of RWE (mean rank: 68.02 vs 53.94, p=0.046), while those without PI/Sub-I experience reported higher RWE reliance for treatment selection (mean rank: 80.07 vs 61.44, p=0.031). Early-career physicians showed higher RWE confidence (mean rank: 73.38 vs 52.25 vs 61.26, p=0.012), clinical decision influence (mean rank: 71.99 vs 50.64 vs 65.85, p<0.001), and outcome prediction use (mean rank: 71.99 vs 50.64 vs 65.85, p=0.021) than mid/late-career physicians. Practice setting significantly impacted RWE confidence (mean rank: 83.69 vs 65.35 vs 53.63, p=0.019), with private practice physicians higher than academic or community physicians.
CONCLUSIONS: Early-career physicians show greater RWE engagement, suggesting a shift in clinical data evaluation in oncology. Differences by research background and practice setting highlight the need for targeted solutions to broaden RWE use. Future efforts could involve changes to medical education curricula, professional development opportunities, and practical resources to improve data access and increase physician confidence, ultimately enhancing oncology care across practice settings.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
HSD45
Topic
Health Service Delivery & Process of Care
Disease
SDC: Oncology