{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,22]],"date-time":"2025-10-22T02:48:24Z","timestamp":1761101304961},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Ubiquity Press, Ltd.","issue":"1","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["eGEMs"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Introduction: Despite growing interest in integrating patient-reported outcome\n            (PRO) measures of symptoms and functional status into routine cancer care, little\n            attention has been paid to patients\u2019 and clinicians\u2019 perceptions of acceptability and\n            value.Methods: A two-phase qualitative study was conducted to develop a web-based PRO\n            screening system with 21 items assessing symptoms (e.g., nausea) and functional status.\n            Phase 1 involved cognitive interviews with 35 cancer outpatients (n=9 breast\n            chemotherapy, radiation for prostate (n=8) or head and neck cancer (n=10), and n=8 bone\n            marrow transplant [BMT]). In Phase 2, we evaluated the acceptability and perceived value\n            of reviewing a PRO measure during real-time clinical encounters with 39 additional\n            outpatients (n=10 breast, n=9 head and neck, n=10 prostate, n=10 BMT) and 12 clinicians\n            (n=3 breast, n=2 head and neck, n=4 prostate, n=3 BMT). At least 20% of patients were\n            \u226560 years, African American, or \u2264 high school.Results: Patients felt that their PRO\n            summary of symptoms and functional status was helpful in discussing health issues with\n            clinicians (92%), wanted to review their results with clinicians during future visits\n            (82%), and would recommend it to other patients (87%). Clinicians found the PRO summary\n            to be easy to interpret (83%), most helpful for documenting the Review of Symptoms\n            (92%), and would recommend it to future patients (92%). Over 90% of clinicians reported\n            that consultation time did not increase.Conclusion: Both cancer patients and clinicians\n            reported that discussing a PRO summary of symptoms and functional status during an\n            outpatient visit was useful, acceptable, and feasible.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.13063\/2327-9214.1169","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2015,10,30]],"date-time":"2015-10-30T07:58:02Z","timestamp":1446191882000},"page":"17","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":32,"title":["Integrating Patient-Reported Measures into Routine Cancer Care: Cancer Patients\u2019\n            and Clinicians\u2019 Perceptions of Acceptability and Value"],"prefix":"10.5334","volume":"3","author":[{"given":"Angela","family":"Stover","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Debra E.","family":"Irwin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Ronald C.","family":"Chen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Bhishamjit S.","family":"Chera","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Deborah K.","family":"Mayer","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Hyman B.","family":"Muss","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Donald L.","family":"Rosenstein","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Thomas C.","family":"Shea","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"William A.","family":"Wood","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Jessica C.","family":"Lyons","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Bryce B.","family":"Reeve","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"3285","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2015,10,29]]},"container-title":["eGEMs (Generating Evidence &amp; Methods to improve patient outcomes)"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/up-j-gemgem.ubiquityjournal.website\/articles\/108\/106","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/up-j-gemgem.ubiquityjournal.website\/articles\/108\/106","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,1,17]],"date-time":"2023-01-17T12:00:52Z","timestamp":1673956852000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/up-j-gemgem.ubiquityjournal.website\/articles\/108"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2015,10,29]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,5,15]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.13063\/2327-9214.1169","relation":{},"ISSN":["2327-9214"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2327-9214","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2015,10,29]]}}}