Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Table 1 ISOQOL PRO Implementation Guide Framework for SLR Data Synthesis

	Data Synthesis Categories	Data Codes
PRO Study Design Recommendations	Goals for Collecting PRO	Screening, Monitoring, Patient Centered Care, Decision Aid, Team communication, Quality of care
	Patients, Setting, Timing of Assessment	Patients: Type of Cancer, Adults vs. Children
		Setting: Clinic, Home, Hospital, Hospice
		Timing of assessment: Before Visit, During Visit, After Visit
	Selection of PROs	Types of PROs Used: Symptoms, Function, Disease-Specific Quality of Life, Generic Quality of Life, Other
	PRO Mode of administration	Paper and Pencil /Phone/ IVR/ePRO (Tablet, Web, Phone)
PRO Study Results Recommendations	Reporting of PRO Results	Where? Clinical Flow vs. Other
		How? Numbers, Graphs, Full Report
		Who? Clinical Team, Patient, Both
	Score Interpretation	Written guidelines, Cut Scores, Minimally Important Difference, Normative Scores
	Plans for Addressing Issues Identified by PRO	Plans in Place/No Plans
	Evaluation of PRO Impact on Clinical Practice	Research Designs Used (RCT, Quasi RCT, Survey)
	Evaluation of PRO Impact on Clinical Practice	Types of Outcomes Considered: Outcomes with Evidence of Impact

Abbreviations: ePRO = electronic patient-reported outcome, IVR = Interactive Voice Response, PRO = patient-reported outcome, RCT = randomized controlled trial