Yuan, C. (2018). Helping patient-reported outcomes be “at home” in clinical practice. Cancer Nursing, 41, 433. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000655.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Solich, M. (2016). Program PRO - Anvendelse af PRO-data i kvalitetsudviklingen af det danske sundhedsvæsen [Programme PRO - application of PROs for quality improvement within danish healthcare]. Trygfonden: VIBIS.
Google Scholar
Appleby, J., Devlin, N. J., & Parkin, D. W. (2016). Using patient reported outcomes to improve health care. Chichester: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Salek, S., Ionova, T., & Oliva, E. (2013). Patients’ needs in hematology: Whose perspectives? Haematologica, 98, 828–830. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2013.090399.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J., Gooding, K., Gibbons, E., et al. (2018). How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0061-6.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J., Dalkin, S., Gibbons, E., et al. (2018). How do aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 23, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617740925.
Article
Google Scholar
Weinfurt, K. P. (2019). Viewing assessments of patient - reported heath status as conversations : Implications for developing and evaluating patient - reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02285-8.
Raine, R., Fitzpatrick, R., Barratt, H., et al. (2016). Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. Southampton (UK).
Brown, M., & Cutler, T. J. (2012). Haematology nursing. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Book
Google Scholar
Snowden, J. A., Ahmedzai, S. H., Ashcroft, J., et al. (2011). Guidelines for supportive care in multiple myeloma 2011. British Journal of Haematology, 154, 76–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08574.x.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Husson, O., Huijgens, P. C., & van der Graaf, W. T. A. (2018). Psychosocial challenges and health-related quality of life of adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies. Blood, 132, 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2017-11-778555.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
McCormack, B., McCance, T., & McCormack, B. (2016). Person-centred practice in nursing and health care : Theory and practice, (2nd edi ed., ). Chichester: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Goswami, P., Khatib, Y., & Salek, S. (2019). Haematological malignancy: Are we measuring what is important to patients? A systematic review of quality-of-life instruments. European Journal of Haematology, 102, 279–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13203.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kane, P. M., Ellis-Smith, C. I., Daveson, B. A., et al. (2018). Understanding how a palliative-specific patient-reported outcome intervention works to facilitate patient-centred care in advanced heart failure: A qualitative study. Palliative Medicine, 32, 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317738161.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
J. Brandt, F., & Scotte, K. J. (2019). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as a routine measure for cancer inpatients: The final missing piece of the puzzle? Annals of Oncology, 30, 167–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy556.
Article
Google Scholar
Goswami, P., Oliva, E. N., Ionova, T., et al. (2019). Paper and electronic versions of HM-PRO, a novel patient-reported outcome measure for hematology: An equivalence study. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 8, 523–533. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0108.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Lund, K. S., Siersma, V. D., Christensen, K. B., et al. (2018). Measuring bothersome menopausal symptoms: Development and validation of the MenoScores questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0927-6.
Article
Google Scholar
Dijkers, M. (2007). “What’s in a name?” the indiscriminate use of the “quality of life” label, and the need to bring about clarity in conceptualizations. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 153–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.07.016.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Moons, P., Budts, W., & De Geest, S. (2006). Critique on the conceptualisation of quality of life: A review and evaluation of different conceptual approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43, 891–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.03.015.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Price, G., et al. (2019). Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ, 364, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5267.
Article
Google Scholar
Brodersen, J., Doward, L. C., Thorsen, H., & Mckenna, S. P. (2012). Writing health-related items for Rasch models – Patient-reported outcome scales for health sciences: From medical paternalism to patient autonomy. In Rasch Models in Health, (pp. 281–302).
Google Scholar
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales : A practical guide to their development and use, (5th ed., ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book
Google Scholar
Langstrup, H. (2018). Patient-reported data and the politics of meaningful data work. Health Informatics Journal, 25, 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458218820188.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Mejdahl, C. T. (2018). Patient-reported outcome measures in outpatient follow-up : A multi-perspective interpretive description : PhD dissertation. Aarhus: Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University.
Google Scholar
Daveson, B., Simon, S., Benalia, H., et al. (2011). Are we heading in the same direction? European and African doctors’ and nurses’ views and experiences regarding outcome measurement in palliative care. Palliative Medicine, 26, 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216311409614.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J., Pawson, R., Wright, J., et al. (2014). Functionality and feedback: A protocol for a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of PROMs data to improve patient care. BMJ Open, 4, e005601. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005601.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
With, W., & Cancer, C. (2017). Feature article feasibility and acceptability of the use of patient-reported outcome measures in the delivery of nurse-led , supportive care to women With cervical Cancer, (pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000306.
Book
Google Scholar
Thorne, S. E. (2016). Interpretive description : Qualitative research for applied practice, (2nd edi ed., ). New York: Routledge.
Book
Google Scholar
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas/. Accessed 4 Aug 2020.
Hansen, S. T., Kjerholt, M., Christensen, S. F., et al. “I am sure that they use my PROM data for something important.” a qualitative study about patients’ experiences from a hematologic outpatient clinic. Cancer Nursing, 43, E273–E282. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000738.
Hansen, S. T., Kjerholt, M., Christensen, S. F., et al. Nurses experiences when introducing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in an outpatient clinic: An interpretive description study [published ahead of print march 2020]. Cancer Nursing.
Thestrup Hansen, S., Kjerholt, M., Friis Christensen, S., et al. (2019). Haematologists’ experiences implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in an outpatient clinic: A qualitative study for applied practice. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 3, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0166-6.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Hesse-Biber, S., & Johnson, R. B. (2015). The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Book
Google Scholar
Hansen, S. T. (2020). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) integrated in the follow-up of patients diagnosed with haematological cancers: A qualitative study of patients’ and health care professionals’ experiences PhD thesis.
Google Scholar
Knoblauch, H. (2005). Focused ethnography. Forum Quality Sozialforsch / Forum Quality Social Research, 6, 44. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.3.20.
Article
Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. 1. Cambridge: Reason and the rationalization of society. Polity.
Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. 2. Lifeworld and system : A critique of functionalist reason. Cambridge: Polity.
Google Scholar
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2018). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice : Appraising evidence for nursing practice, (9th ed., ). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health.
Google Scholar
Karwacka, W. (2014). Quality assurance in medical translation. Journal of Specialised Translation (2), 19–34.
Abraham, J., Bardelay, D., Kopp, C., et al. (2002). Education and debate. Bmj, 325, 1164. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7373.1164.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
McMillan, S. S., Kelly, F., Sav, A., et al. (2014). Using the nominal group technique: How to analyse across multiple groups. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology, 14, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-014-0121-1.
Article
Google Scholar
Department of Haemaology at Zealand University Hospital (2016). Opfølgningsplan - Hæmatologisk afdeling [local guideline on patient follow-up care - the Department of Haematology]. Denmark: Roskilde.
Google Scholar
Department of Haematology at Zealand University Hospital (2016). Sygeplejefaglig referenceramme i Hæmatologisk afdeling [framework on nursing in Department of Haematology]. Denmark: Roskilde.
Google Scholar
Miller, D., Steele Gray, C., Kuluski, K., & Cott, C. (2015). Patient-centered care and patient-reported measures: Let’s look before we leap. Patient, 8, 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0095-7.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Filleron, T., Dalenc, F., & Kramar, A. (2012). Personalised cancer follow-up: Risk stratification, needs assessment or both. British Journal of Cancer, 106, 1579–1580. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.108.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Rotenstein, L. S., Huckman, R. S., & Wagle, N. W. (2017). Making patients and doctors happier — The potential of patient-reported outcomes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 377, 1309–1312. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1707537.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Nielsen, L. K. Longitudinal patient-reported outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma. PhD dissertation. University of Southern Denmark.
Mercieca-Bebber, R., Palmer, M. J., Brundage, M., et al. (2016). Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010938.
Mercieca-Bebber, R., Calvert, M., Kyte, D., et al. (2018). The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 9, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2017.11.009.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes, (2nd ed., ). Chichester: Wiley.
Book
Google Scholar
Mokkink, L. B., Princen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2019). COSMIN study design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. In Dep. Epidemiol. Biostat. Amsterdam public heal. Res. Inst. Amsterdam Univ. med. Centers, Locat. VUmc www.cosmin.nl.
Google Scholar
Thorne, S. (2015). Does nursing represent a unique angle of vision? If so, what is it? Nursing Inquiry, 22, 283–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12128.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Heinen, M. M., van Achterberg, T., Schwendimann, R., et al. (2013). Nurses’ intention to leave their profession: A cross sectional observational study in 10 European countries. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50, 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.019.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Sasso, L., Bagnasco, A., Catania, G., et al. (2019). Push and pull factors of nurses’ intention to leave. J Nurs Manag, 27, 946–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12745.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Degen, C., Weigl, M., Glaser, J., et al. (2014). The impact of training and working conditions on junior doctors’ intention to leave clinical practice. BMC Medical Education, 14, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-119.
Article
Google Scholar
Young, B., Hill, J., Gravenhorst, K., et al. (2013). Is communication guidance mistaken? Qualitative study of parent-oncologist communication in childhood cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 109, 836–843. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.413.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Rycroft-Malone, J., Seers, K., Chandler, J., et al. (2013). The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: Implications for the development of the PARIHS framework. Implementation Science, 8, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-28.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Nilsen, P. (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10, 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Grol, R., … Davis, D. (2013). Improving patient care : The implementation of change in health care, (2nd ed., ). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell/BMJ Books.
Book
Google Scholar
Hestbech, M. S., Siersma, V., Dirksen, A., et al. (2011). Participation bias in a randomised trial of screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer, 73, 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.12.018.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Cruz, E., & Higginbottom, G. (2013). The use of focus research ethnography in nursing. Nurse Researcher, 20, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.36.e305.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Google Scholar
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar