The PROMova study comparing active and passive use of patient-reported outcome measures in ovarian cancer follow-up: effect on patient-perceived involvement, satisfaction with care, and usefulness

Patients with ovarian cancer often experience substantial health problems and side effects resulting in reduced quality of life (QoL). Different models of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during follow-up may improve the quality of care. This national, multicenter observational study investigated the effect of active use of PROMs on patient-perceived involvement, satisfaction with care, unmet needs, and QoL during follow-up of ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer patients were recruited at the end of primary treatment at eight centers in Denmark. During 18 months of follow-up patients repeatedly completed European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires covering health related QoL and symptoms. At the sites using PROMs actively (ACT), the clinician had access to an overview of the patient's scores during the clinical encounter. Clinicians using PROMs passively were alerted in case of severe development of symptoms. Following each encounter, patients evaluated their health service experience by completing the CollaboRATE scale of involvement in decision making, the Patient Experience Questionnaire, and ad hoc questions covering patient-perceived usefulness of the PROMs.

A total of 223 patients were enrolled, i.e., 168 (75.3%) at five sites using ACT and 53 (23.8%) at three sites using them passively. We found no statistically significant difference in involvement in the decision making, satisfaction with care, unmet needs, and QoL between the two groups. The majority of patients found it useful to complete the PROMs, although it did not seem to significantly support them in raising issues with the oncologist.

Active use of PROMs did not improve patients’ experience of involvement in follow-up care as compared to passive use.