↓ Skip to main content

Taking patient reported outcomes centre stage in cancer research – why has it taken so long?

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
55 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Taking patient reported outcomes centre stage in cancer research – why has it taken so long?
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40900-018-0109-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Selby, Galina Velikova

Abstract

Roger Wilson challenged cancer professionals in research and care to place the patient perspective and patient reported outcome measures centre stage. The ability to collect information from patients using structured questionnaires (known as Patient Reported Outcome Measures or PROMs) which ask about clinical issues (such as disease symptoms or treatment side-effects) as well as social, emotional and psychological issues has existed for 40 years. They provide a powerful way of working out whether an aspect of diagnosis or treatment for cancer is bringing real benefits to patients that can be measured using these structured questionnaires. When they are used, studies and cancer service developments are clearly constrained to focus on what matters to patients rather than, perhaps what matters to health service professionals or recent exciting but perhaps relatively unproven new technologies. There is good evidence that PROMs can contribute valuable inputs into the results of randomised controlled trials, clinical consultations and surveys of whole populations even at a national level. However, there is a great deal more work to be done on methodology and perhaps to change attitudes and cultures within the healthcare professions before they can deliver all of their potential to bring benefits to cancer patients. In response to Roger Wilson's challenge to place a patient-centred approach using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) across all of the patient pathway, we have summarised progress over 40 years. We have critically evaluated what has been achieved to use patient reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials, in routine clinical practice and in population surveys. We conclude that there has been substantial scientific progress but that it has, arguably, been relatively slow. Barriers to placing PROMs centre stage in all of these areas of activity remain in methodology and to a degree in professional attitudes and culture. Active research programmes on methodology and closer working between healthcare professionals, cancer patients and patient advocates are the key requirements to speed up the use and application of PROMs and which should bring benefits to cancer patients and healthcare services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Philosophy 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2020.
All research outputs
#906,153
of 24,313,168 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#64
of 442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,035
of 332,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,313,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.