Facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: a systematic review based on the consolidated framework for implementation research.

Jianxia Lyu, Hao Zhang, Hua Wang, Xia Liu, Yunhua Jing, Li Yin, Aiping Wang
{"title":"Facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: a systematic review based on the consolidated framework for implementation research.","authors":"Jianxia Lyu, Hao Zhang, Hua Wang, Xia Liu, Yunhua Jing, Li Yin, Aiping Wang","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00654-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In clinical oncology practice, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential for assessing the symptom burden, quality of life, and psychological status of patients. However, there remains a gap between the use of PROs in an oncologic setting and its implementation. Furthermore, numerous reviews in PRO implementation are often based on one particular technology, setting, or health condition, making it difficult to obtain a comprehensive and coherent summary of available evidence to help plan and undertake implementation. This systematic review aims to identify and integrate enablers and barriers to PRO implementation through the comprehensive framework for implementation research (CFIR) to provide a reference for implementing patient-reported outcomes management in oncology settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review strictly observed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched using a three-step search strategy. The search was limited from the inception of each database to April 2024. Articles describing facilitators and barriers to implementing PROs in clinical oncology practice were included. Two researchers screened the literature independently, and the quality assessment of cross-sectional, qualitative, and mixed studies was completed using the critical appraisal tools recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the mixed methods assessment tool, respectively. Basic information about the included studies and determinants affecting PRO implementation was extracted, and coding categorization of facilitators and barriers was completed based on the 48 constructs provided by the CFIR framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 30 studies from 5,649 search results, including 25 original and 5 review studies. The quality of the literature for qualitative studies was generally good, and the quality for quantitative and mixed studies was assessed as fair. We identified 52 facilitators and 50 barriers in the included literature, covering the domains used in the CFIR framework and 39 constructs, mainly including \"Innovation Evidence-Base\", \"Innovation Complexity\", \"Innovation Design\", \"Structural Characteristics\", \"Compatibility\", \"Incentive Systems\", \"Access to Knowledge & Information\", \"Innovation Deliverers\", \"Innovation Recipients\", and \"Planning\".</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review integrated facilitators and barriers affecting PRO implementation in routine oncology clinical practice settings and categorized them through the CFIR framework. These influencing factors should be fully considered in future clinical practice to ensure the successful implementation of PROs.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>It has been registered prospectively in PROSPERO under the registration number 42024532983.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520578/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00654-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In clinical oncology practice, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential for assessing the symptom burden, quality of life, and psychological status of patients. However, there remains a gap between the use of PROs in an oncologic setting and its implementation. Furthermore, numerous reviews in PRO implementation are often based on one particular technology, setting, or health condition, making it difficult to obtain a comprehensive and coherent summary of available evidence to help plan and undertake implementation. This systematic review aims to identify and integrate enablers and barriers to PRO implementation through the comprehensive framework for implementation research (CFIR) to provide a reference for implementing patient-reported outcomes management in oncology settings.

Methods: This review strictly observed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched using a three-step search strategy. The search was limited from the inception of each database to April 2024. Articles describing facilitators and barriers to implementing PROs in clinical oncology practice were included. Two researchers screened the literature independently, and the quality assessment of cross-sectional, qualitative, and mixed studies was completed using the critical appraisal tools recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the mixed methods assessment tool, respectively. Basic information about the included studies and determinants affecting PRO implementation was extracted, and coding categorization of facilitators and barriers was completed based on the 48 constructs provided by the CFIR framework.

Results: We included 30 studies from 5,649 search results, including 25 original and 5 review studies. The quality of the literature for qualitative studies was generally good, and the quality for quantitative and mixed studies was assessed as fair. We identified 52 facilitators and 50 barriers in the included literature, covering the domains used in the CFIR framework and 39 constructs, mainly including "Innovation Evidence-Base", "Innovation Complexity", "Innovation Design", "Structural Characteristics", "Compatibility", "Incentive Systems", "Access to Knowledge & Information", "Innovation Deliverers", "Innovation Recipients", and "Planning".

Conclusions: This systematic review integrated facilitators and barriers affecting PRO implementation in routine oncology clinical practice settings and categorized them through the CFIR framework. These influencing factors should be fully considered in future clinical practice to ensure the successful implementation of PROs.

Trial registration: It has been registered prospectively in PROSPERO under the registration number 42024532983.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在临床肿瘤学实践中实施患者报告结果的促进因素和障碍:基于实施研究综合框架的系统综述。
背景:在临床肿瘤学实践中,患者报告结果(PROs)对于评估患者的症状负担、生活质量和心理状态至关重要。然而,PROs 在肿瘤治疗中的应用与实施之间仍存在差距。此外,有关 PRO 实施的众多综述通常都是基于一种特定的技术、环境或健康状况,因此很难对现有证据进行全面、连贯的总结,以帮助计划和实施。本系统性综述旨在通过实施研究综合框架(CFIR)识别并整合PRO实施的有利因素和障碍,为在肿瘤环境中实施患者报告结果管理提供参考:本综述严格遵守系统综述和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目。采用三步检索策略对 PubMed、Web of Science、CINAHL、Embase 和 PsycINFO 数据库进行了系统检索。检索时间仅限于各数据库建立之初至 2024 年 4 月。纳入了描述在临床肿瘤学实践中实施 PROs 的促进因素和障碍的文章。两名研究人员独立筛选文献,并分别使用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(JBI)推荐的关键评估工具和混合方法评估工具完成了横断面研究、定性研究和混合研究的质量评估。我们提取了纳入研究的基本信息和影响PRO实施的决定因素,并根据CFIR框架提供的48个构架完成了促进因素和障碍因素的编码分类:我们从 5,649 项搜索结果中选取了 30 项研究,包括 25 项原创研究和 5 项综述研究。定性研究的文献质量总体良好,定量研究和混合研究的文献质量被评定为一般。我们在收录的文献中发现了 52 个促进因素和 50 个障碍因素,涵盖了 CFIR 框架中使用的领域和 39 个构建要素,主要包括 "创新证据基础"、"创新复杂性"、"创新设计"、"结构特征"、"兼容性"、"激励系统"、"知识和信息获取"、"创新提供者"、"创新接受者 "和 "规划":本系统性综述综合了影响 PRO 在常规肿瘤临床实践环境中实施的促进因素和障碍,并通过 CFIR 框架对其进行了分类。在未来的临床实践中,应充分考虑这些影响因素,以确保 PROs 的成功实施:该试验已在 PROSPERO 进行了前瞻性注册,注册号为 42024532983。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Audit and feedback is an effective implementation strategy to increase fidelity to a multi-component labor induction protocol designed to reduce obstetric inequities. Development of an implementation intervention to promote adoption of the COMFORT clinical practice guideline for peripartum pain management: a qualitative study. The system can change: a feasibility study of a doula-clinician collaborative at a large tertiary hospital in the United States. Development and evaluation of an implementation strategy to increase HPV vaccination among underserved youth across Texas: a protocol paper. Impact of learning health systems on cross-system collaboration between youth legal and community mental health systems: a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1