Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial.

By G. Velikova, Laura J. Booth, Adam B. Smith, Paul M Brown, Pamela Lynch, Julia M. Brown, P. Selby. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2004

1,334 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Oncology, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9f1349f31c9b2d296fe4b83aa0ffb54706da86f5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Joanne Greenhalgh

In Oncology

1. Joanne Greenhalgh
2. Jack Chen
3. L. Ou
4. S. Hollis

In Surgery

1. Joanne Greenhalgh
2. N. Aaronson

Citations in the corpus

• The complete European guidelines on phenylketonuria: diagnosis and treatment (2017, background): “In other conditions, such as adults with cancer and children and adolescents with diabetes, improved psychosocial outcomes were demonstrated [167, 169, 170], but de Wit et al.”
• The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment (2007, methodology): “Velikova G., Booth L., Smith A. B. et al. (2004).”
• Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items (2009, background): “Assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL)— that is, functioning and well-being in physical, mental, and social domains of life‐has been shown to be useful in screening for disability and in improving communication between patients and clinicians [1, 2 ]. Generic HRQOL profile measures us”
• Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations (2012, background): “, ‘‘higher scores mean better functioning’’) [43, 51]; however, such approaches provide no information about the score’s clinical importance or importance to the patient.”
• A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting (2013, methodology): “Amongst the 16 studies, 15 studies [16,20,33,36, 37,39,41,43,45-50,53] reported either a strong or moderate”
• Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. (2016, neutral): “Age, median (range), years 61 (30-91) 62 (26-88) 59 (30-85) 60 (26-88) 67 (38-91) 67 (44-86) Female sex 257 (58) 187 (58) 184 (64) 152 (60) 73 (47) 35 (49) Race White 377 (86) 283 (87) 253 (89) 230 (91) 124 (80) 53 (74) Black† 43 (10) 24 (7) 20 (7) 10 (4) 23 (15) 14 (19) Asian 21 (5) 18 (6) 13 (5) 1”
• The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? (2009, methodology): “Another, as yet unpublished, study [86] used conversation analysis to analyse a small sample of tape recorded consultations from a previously conducted trial [65] in which patients with cancer completed the EORTC-QLQC-30 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADs) and these were fed back to”
• Electronic patient‐reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice (2012, background): “16,17 PatientViewpoint is designed as a flexible system that can be easily tailored for patient and provider interests and unique needs.”
• The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature (2008, neutral): “In more than half (17), the instrument was selfadministered, mainly unsupervised, and in one case used touch-screen questionnaires [46].”
• What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. (2014, background): “Regardless of patients’ cancer type, significant postintervention increases over time in the frequency of discussions pertinent to patient outcomes during consultations were recorded.(35,38) The odds of such outcomes being discussed seemed to depend on whether these were reported at a level indicati”