COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PERCEPTION AND PERSPECTIVES ON PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES (PROS) AND REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE (RWE) RESEARCH IN THE CONTEMPORARY ERA

• Published in: Value in health Vol. 20; no. 5; p. A136
• Main Authors: Nabhan, C, Braverman, J, Fillman, J, Ernst, FR, Feinberg, BA
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Lawrenceville Elsevier Science Ltd 01.05.2017
• Subjects: Attitudes; Barriers; Clinical outcomes; Community; Cost control; Decision making; Drugs; Health care; Health care expenditures; Oncologists; Oncology; Patient-centered care; Patients; Prescribing; Quality of care; Quality of life; Savings; Staffing; Technology
• ISSN: 1098-3015; 1524-4733
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.005

OBJECTIVES: PROs and RWE research are vital components in patient-centered care. The recently passed Cures-21 bill named both as important parts of new drug approval processes. Views on RWE and RWE research among community oncologists, where patients are seen most, are not well studied. The purpose of this study was to understand clinician perspectives regarding participation in and use of such research. METHODS: This descriptive study identified PROs and RWErelated attitudes among 51 community-based US oncologists. Data were collected at a live meeting with audience response technology. RESULTS: While only 13% of oncologists were aware of any oncology drug containing PRO claims in its package insert, and only 25% ever considered PROs in prescribing decisions, 80% agreed that the value of PROs increases if cost savings were shown. Only 11% of oncologists have ever participated in PRO-research and 74% stated that identifying patients for such studies is somewhat/very difficult. If patients were identified, 64% of oncologists believed that contacting these patients would not be a barrier. Over 80% of oncologists believed that ≥25% of their patients would participate in PRO research if compensated. Similarly, 70% of oncologists would participate if compensated. Top barriers to participating in PRO research: staffing (64%), education of patients/staff (57%), and technology (53%). Almost all oncologists believed that RWE drives efficiency and improves quality of care, and 46% believed that RWE is very impactful on their clinical-decision making. Most oncologists believed that "decreasing total healthcare expenditures" and "patients' quality of life" are where RWE research impacts oncology care. Barriers to participating in RWE research: logistics (60%), personnel (58%), and finances (52%). Most (72%) favor participating in RWE and PRO research if the process is made seamless for participating practices. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing barriers to PROs and RWE research in community oncology is essential moving forward; logistics and finances are major hurdles.