Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial.

By S. Detmar, M. Muller, J. Schornagel, L. Wever, N. Aaronson. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2002

1,024 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Oncology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e82b1a7401c73439a54656439acaf56b9256d735

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Health Professions

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

In Oncology

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

Citations in the corpus

• 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, methodology): “The only exception was greater agreement in ratings of social functioning in the experimental group, but this applied only to the subgroup of patients who reported moderate-to-severe problems.(21) Oncology nurses’ awareness of daily activities, pain, and QoL was significantly higher in the experimen”
• 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”
• Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. (2004, background): “These results are consistent with other studies, confirming influence on physician-patient interactions, but not medical decisions [15-17,19,33].”
• The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment (2007, background): “Studies, including some from our group, on the presentation of patient HRQL information have used either graphic or written displays [12, 22-28].”
• 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, background): “All articles were examined if they cited the 7 key randomised controlled trials [33-39] listed in the above reviews (bottom-up approach).”
• Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations (2012, background): “Some practices may provide patients with their PRO results to enable patients to be active members of the care team and participate in decision making [42, 49].”