Skip to main content

Table 3 Mean and 95% CI for PROM strengths and weaknesses: single-item and overall scores

From: Knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a comprehensive cancer center

 

Mean

95% CI

PROM strengths (N = 485)

 PROMs can be useful to document the quality of care we offer our patients

3.7

3.7–3.8

 PROMs help patients to express issues related to their health conditions

3.7

3.6–3.8

 PROMs can provide information on problems I don’t investigate regularly

3.7

3.6–3.8

 PROMs allow for wider and better patient involvement in the care process

3.6

3.5–3.7

 PROMs facilitate patient relationships with the treating HCP team

3.5

3.5–3.6

 PROMs repeatedly assessed over time are useful for clinical decision-making during the care process

3.5

3.4–3.6

 PROMs allow more focused and efficient communication with the patient during the visit

3.5

3.4–3.6

 Overall PROM strengths score

3.6

3.5–3.7

PROM weaknesses (N = 477)

 During the visit there is no time for adequate administration of PROMs

3.6

3.5–3.7

 HCPs lack the resources to handle issues the patient may raise when completing PROMs

3.3

3.2–3.4

 The administration of PROMs entails an additional workload for HCPs

3.3

3.2–3.4

 PROMs are often filled in by caregivers

3.2

3.2–3.3

 Patients have difficulties in understanding questionnaire response scales

3.1

3.0–3.2

 PROMs fail to grasp the complexity of the patient’s experience

2.7

2.6–2.8

 PROM scores are difficult to interpret

2.7

2.6–2.8

 It is difficult to explain the use of PROMs to the patient

2.7

2.6–2.8

 Completing PROMs is an excessive physical and psychological burden for patients

2.5

2.5–2.6

 The data collected through PROMs are not reliable

2.4

2.3–2.5

 PROMs do not add anything to the information HCPs already collect during the clinical contact

2.1

2.0–2.2

 Overall PROM weaknesses score

2.9

2.8–2.9

  1. PROM Patient-reported outcome measure, HCP Healthcare professional