CN59 - A scoping review to establish the utility of patient reported outcome measures in blood cancer

Background

Blood cancers can have devastating effects on patients’ physical, emotional, and psychosocial health. With improvements in therapies, patients are living longer. There is growing evidence to support the use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in capturing cancer care sequel as they measure a patient’s perception of their own health status and needs through validated tools. While PROMs are widely adopted in oncology, it is felt that uptake in haematology remains limited in routine outpatient supportive care. Therefore, the objective of this scoping review is to explore, and identify the utility of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in blood cancer and to understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to benefits of PROMs to patients within routine clinical practice.

Methods

This review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al. 2020) and the PRISMA- ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta analysis) model for organising information (Tricco et al. 2018).

Results

Initial searches identified 7977 papers, 21 full texts were reviewed and eight papers that met the final inclusion criteria were included in the review. The findings were placed in categories of papers and included: acceptability and usability, self-efficacy, patient experience, implementation and impact of PROMs.

Conclusions

The papers identified the area of interests to be the implementation process of PROMS, within routine care, where the dominance was implementation of electronic versus paper, for routine symptom management and only one paper addressed impact of PROMS on patient outcomes. This highlights the collation of data but not how the data is used in routine care to improve the quality of life when living with a chronic Haematology illness trajectory. To conclude there is limited to non-existent evidence on the impact of using PROMs to support delivery of personalised supportive care.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

S. Kirkpatrick and K. Campbell.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.