Patient-reported Symptoms and Quality of Life Integrated into Clinical Cancer Care

doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2011.04.005

Semin Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 1.

Published in final edited form as:

Semin Oncol Nurs. 2011 August; 27(3): 203–210.

doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2011.04.005

PMCID: PMC3143403

NIHMSID: NIHMS308160

Patient-reported Symptoms and Quality of Life Integrated into Clinical Cancer Care

Donna L. Berry, PhD, RN, AOCN®, FAAN

Donna L. Berry, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, Director of the Phyllis F. Cantor Center for Research, Nursing & Patient Care Services, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA;

Author contact: Donna L. Berry, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave; LW 518, Boston, MA 02215, 617-632-1909 voice, 617 -394-2877 fax, Email: donna_berry/at/dfci.harvard.edu

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Semin Oncol Nurs

See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.

Publisher's Disclaimer

Abstract

Objectives

To provide an overview of research and practice related to patient-reported symptom and quality of life assessment integrated into clinical care.

Data sources

Literature retrieved through the PUBMED and CINAHL databases.

Conclusion

Assessing and incorporating patient preferences, engaging the patient in self-report and extending the interaction to the place and time favored by the patient are necessary to bring meaning to the term, patient-centered. There is beginning evidence that these approaches can make a difference, improving care quality.

Implications for nursing practice

Oncology nurses no longer need to be constrained by paper symptom checklists. Patient-reported symptom and quality of life information can be electronically collected and simultaneously made available for home and clinical use through the utilization of Web-based programs.

Keywords: cancer symptoms, quality of life, patient centered care, clinical informatics, patient reported outcomes

Cancer symptoms and quality of life issues (SQLI) are of the highest priority to oncology clinicians and researchers.¹ Screening for patient-reported concerns is a first step in triaging each patient’s needs to the most appropriate provider or service. The workday of an oncology nurse is often focused on symptom assessment, treatment and teaching across the broad spectrum of the individual patient’s physiological, emotional, sensory and behavioral experiences. Attending to treatment-related side effects promotes safe delivery of cancer therapies. Physician specialists in oncology are keenly aware that adverse events reported by patients reduce the likelihood of administering the full therapeutic dose required to adequately treat a malignancy.² Providing focus to the subjective report by the patient in the clinic in order to efficiently address the most important concerns without extending the time required for face-to-face assessment is the ideal in resource-constrained environments.

Collecting patient-reported information throughout the trajectory of treatment was once accomplished solely through the verbal history component of the clinician’s assessment. By the 1990’s several large cancer clinics were utilizing paper symptom checklists to facilitate the patient reports.³ With the advent of the electronic resources and then the Internet, patient-reported experiences are now being collected with interactive methods, not only in clinics, but also at times and locations more convenient to the patient. The purpose of this article is to review various approaches to methods and procedures that have been developed and tested as patient-centered technologies for SQL self-report and the integration of these approaches into clinical cancer care.

Why must we carefully assess the SQL experiences of our patients?

Cancer symptoms indicate physiologic changes associated with disease and treatment toxicity, and also reflect linkages to patients’ perceived reality, including social, psychological and cultural factors.⁴ Pain and fatigue are the two pre-eminent, significant symptoms that are addressed in virtually every publication about cancer experiences and supportive care of persons with cancer. The prevalence of elevated psychosocial distress among patients with cancer at diagnosis and recurrence is reported to be at least 30%,⁵ with clinical depression occurring in 25% of cases.⁶ Kroenke et al.⁷ reported highly prevalent somatic symptoms in 405 subjects with pain and depression from 16 rural cancer clinics; the most common being fatigue, sleep concerns and memory difficulty. This group of symptoms also was strongly associated with self-reported bother and disability scores. Most research literature about cancer treatment and symptoms assumes that symptoms mediate between types of treatment and diminishing aspects of function. For example, Given and colleagues⁸ studied the relationship between symptoms and physical functioning in elderly patients with cancer, reporting a significant relationship between symptoms and function which was independent of treatment modality or cancer site. With the incidence of individual and groups of cancer symptoms at such a high level across various diagnoses and stages and the apparent impact of such experiences on dimensions of quality of life, the consequences of inadequate symptom management are complex and can be overwhelming to patients and their caregivers. For example: animal models suggest that uncontrolled pain may shorten survival,⁹ severe mucositis¹⁰ or radiation-associated skin changes¹¹ put patients at risk for additional complications¹² and gastrointestinal complications can compromise quality of life in practically all domains.¹³ Adequate SQL assessment and management also have implications for cancer therapy outcomes. For example, in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck and cervix, longer overall treatment times due to delays have resulted in poorer cancer-control outcomes.¹⁴ The adverse effect of treatment prolongation in cervical cancer by high-dose-rate brachytherapy suggests that poorly-controlled treatment-related symptoms are a key source of treatment delays. ¹⁵ The program of research conducted by the Givens’ team with multiple diagnoses in the community setting has informed our understanding of cancer symptoms in ambulatory patients and how home monitoring, nursing support and self-care impacts symptom intensity^{16, 17,} hospital admissions¹⁸ and emergency room care.¹⁹

Other demographic variables and treatment scenarios bring cancer SQLI to the forefront. Because adults over 65 years comprise 61% of all patients with cancer,²⁰ we must note that co-morbid illnesses experienced by older adults, notably congestive heart failure, have deleterious effects on cancer survival.²¹ Unfortunately, there is a paucity of information concerning the factors that modify treatment effect, tolerance and toxicity in elderly patients. Quality of life and symptom profiles are important factors when making treatment decisions in prostate cancer²² and breast cancer care. This may be particularly true when the disease is either incurable (stage 4) or likely to be cured with any of a variety of approaches (stage 1). There is evidence that clinicians under-report toxicities for patients with breast cancer and that patient-reported outcomes are more accurate.²³

Early screening for psychosocial distress is recommended as a preferred practice by the National Quality Forum²⁴ and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)²⁵ and may enable clinicians to identify patients at higher risk and intervene to prevent development of crisis events.²⁶ Discussing SQLI in the clinic can promote partnership between clinicians and patients, validating the patients’ experiences and enhancing communication and satisfaction.²⁷ Yet, recent trends in ambulatory care to reduce clinician time spent with each patient have rendered existing measures less feasible.⁶ Rapid, predictive screening may help reduce unnecessary health care utilization costs and prolonged medical treatments, as well as enhance quality of life.²⁸ The challenge of efficient, systematic and meaningful assessment is important and timely in current clinical cancer settings.

Because of developments in the science of cancer screening, detection, and treatment, plus collaborative involvement of various professionals and consumers, quality of life (QoL) and symptom assessment is now an established, integral component of cancer clinical trials. While major comprehensive cancer centers have developed and reported the routine clinical use of multi-symptom assessment tools,²⁹ the routine clinical use of QoL questionnaires (including symptom scales) has been reported and evaluated only on a limited basis and rarely in the United States (US).^{27, 30–34}

How can we improve patient–clinician communication about SQL?

Various strategies to enhance communication between patients with cancer and clinicians have been studied. Pilot, feasibility studies are plentiful ^34,35 yet randomized trials to establish the efficacy of patient-reported SQL systems enhancing communication or diminishing symptom distress are uncommon. Previous European randomized clinical trials (RCT) in oncology have shown that computerized measurement of patients’ symptoms had positive impact on patient-clinician communication. Velikova and colleagues³⁶ compared computerized self-report using the EORTC QLQ C-30, both with or without provision of the printed results to the clinician and to a control group, respectively. A significant, but small difference on mean number of symptoms discussed was found between the intervention group whose clinician received the results and the control group, 3.3 (SD=1.63) and 2.7 (SD=1.63) respectively. The availability of the printed result in the clinic visit did increase the proportion of visits in which certain C-30 symptoms were mentioned, notably insomnia and appetite, but not pain or nausea/vomiting. In a more recent Dutch study, Hilarius et al.³⁷ used a non-randomized, sequential cohort design to test touch-screen C30 assessments in 219 patients and a graphical summary given to 10 oncology clinic nurses. The authors reported that the patients in the post-intervention cohort discussed significantly more symptoms with their nurses. Finally, in a Norwegian trial, Ruland et al.³⁸ reported a significant impact for their interactive tailored patient assessment on chart notes in a study of 145 inpatients with hematologic malignancies or lymphoma. The authors also reported lower symptom distress over time in those patients randomized to use the assessment.

In the one RCT conducted in the United States,³⁹ patients with various cancer diagnoses and stages at two institutions of a comprehensive cancer center (Figure 1) answered the Web-based assessment, Electronic Self Report Assessment-Cancer (ESRA-C). The 660 participants were randomized to an experimental condition in which the patient-reported SQLI were automatically displayed on a graphical summary and provided to the clinical team prior to a treatment visit or the control condition in which no summary was provided. The clinic visit was audio-recorded for each participant and then scored for discussion of each SQLI. The likelihood of SQLI discussed was significantly higher in the experimental condition, depending on whether SQLI was first reported as problematic (p=0.032). The ESRA-C summaries did not extend the clinic visits and clinicians reported the summary as useful. At the cancer center where ESRA-C was developed and tested, the patient-report program is continuing to date as a clinical adjunct to ambulatory visits in the stem cell transplant setting. Nurses view the summary prior to each visit and use the results to initiate focused discussions of SQLI beginning with the patient-ranked, top two problems. (personal communication, R. Ford, 3/7/2011).

Figure 1

Patient completing ESRA-C prior to clinic visit on wireless, touch-screen notebook computer

Multiple small pilot studies have demonstrated feasibility of computerized SQL assessment in cancer clinics or by remote access, but there have been few evaluations of routine clinical use. Erharter and colleagues in Austria⁴⁰ provided tablet computers to all cognitively intact patients over 3.5 years at a neuro-oncology clinic on which to answer cancer specific QoL and symptom questionnaires. Patient (N=110) and clinician acceptance was reported as “high” but only anecdotal comments were published. DuBenske et al.⁴¹ evaluated a cancer-specific adaption of a web-based data collection application used in 107 Wisconsin patients with advanced cancer and also delivered a real-time clinician report (CR). Study staff interviewed the three physicians and four nurses to examine the use and perceptions of the CR. Using content analysis, the investigators described benefits reported by the clinicians as: enhanced visit communication, including the caregivers’ involvement; and increased early intervention for problematic symptoms. Challenges included functionality and design of the CR; lower use by patients than caregivers leading to questioning the integrity of the reported symptom level; a belief that the screening approach of questionnaire cannot replace verbal interaction between patients and clinicians. Basch et al.^{34, 42} have led an effort to create, validate and test a web-based, patient-reported version of the National Cancer Institute’s Common Toxicity Criteria; preliminary results suggest feasibility of such electronic reporting. Feasibility of in-clinic, pre-visit measurement of patient-reported symptoms also was established by an industry-sponsored initiative at 15 community clinics, however measures reported were limited to whether the clinic staff had implemented key processes involved with the program.⁴³

Why have cancer centers not implemented routine patient-reported SQLI?

Clinician barriers

The manner in which clinicians respond to computer-generated symptom reports or to verbal patient-initiated discussions about symptoms may be barriers. Earlier work at an academic cancer clinic reflects some of this phenomenon. Clinicians in the Cancer Pain Coaching study⁴⁴ were attentive to problems relevant to treatment side effects; however, the results also indicated a pattern of communication during the clinic visit that was typically clinician-oriented, including interruptions and many closed-ended questions. There is also evidence that clinical providers may not always respond to electronic summaries of self-reported symptom and quality of life issues in a way that facilitates communication and subsequent treatment.⁴⁵ The nature of such communication may prevent the patient from sharing significant facts and experiences relevant to cancer pain and thus compromise the quality of symptom management. The mixed results illustrate a possible clinical dilemma; clinicians are intent on helping their patients through the treatment but may attend only to the issues with which the clinician is most familiar. Additionally time constraints, lack of resources for referral, institutional policy or reimbursement issues may preclude comprehensive symptom management and dissuade clinicians from accepting a patient-reported summary. These factors were identified as possible contributors to inadequate symptom care by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) conference panel in 2002.⁴⁶ Assuring expedient clinician access to resources for symptom management and referrals is essential to any attempt to alleviate symptom distress. Finally, clinicians are not always convinced when planning technologies for patient-reported SQLI that the system will fit well into the established workflow.⁴⁷

Patient Barriers

Preferred method to report SQLI

A barrier for patients as they try to articulate their SQL experiences, and one that is rarely addressed in the professional literature, is that of burdensome, irrelevant or static assessments. Kim et al. ⁴⁸ used contingent valuation to ascertain patient preference for symptom reporting approaches; they concluded that patient preference for self-report tools increases when tools are more relevant to patient-specific issues (i.e., customized). Web-based applications have the most potential of any method to deliver not only assessments specific to a particular diagnosis or stage of cancer but also customized to particular characteristics of a patient, such as learning style or language.

Language and cultural issues

Although many immigrants and visitors with minimal English skills are challenged when navigating our treatment settings, Spanish-speaking individuals represent the largest group. In the U.S., Hispanics/Latinos are estimated to be 15.1% of the total population and are the fastest-growing minority group.⁴⁹ Over 12% of the U.S. population speaks Spanish at home.⁵⁰ New cancer cases were estimated to be 98,900 and deaths from cancer 28,800 in this population for 2009.⁵¹ Despite the large population, Hispanics are an underserved population on various health care access and quality measures. Barriers may vary by geographic locations, but often include language, insurance coverage, immigration status, cultural beliefs, and lack of services. Moreover, grouping all Hispanics masks diversity by geographic location, socioeconomic characteristics, level of acculturation, and national origin/heritage which have been linked to cancer^52,53 and other health outcomes.^54–58 Given the diversity and needs of this population, health care services and clinical care are needed that are linguistically appropriate and culturally sensitive. Cultural sensitivity has been defined with regard to health care and health information that incorporates the health attitudes, customs and beliefs of its target patient or consumer population.⁵⁹ A model has been developed for increasing cultural sensitivity of health promotion and disease prevention interventions by matching both surface structure (superficial, observable characteristics) and deep structure (social, cultural, psychological, historical, and environmental factors) of the target population.⁶⁰ For addressing SQL, three related areas are especially salient for Hispanic patients: the symptom experiences; patient-provider communication factors; and the information needs and seeking behaviors of patients.

Studies of cancer treatment-related symptoms in Hispanic patients regularly find higher symptom burden, especially depression and pain.^{61, 62} This is variously attributed to patient culture, family beliefs and religion (e.g., a stoic attitude toward pain)^{63, 64} and physician underestimation of the problems.^{65, 66} Religion or spirituality is consistently found important, both as an area of psychosocial need and as a coping resource^{67, 68} as is interest in complementary and alternative medicine to manage treatment side effects.⁶² Poor provider-patient communication adversely impacts the ability of patients to communicate their SQL experience and understand and adhere to SQL management recommendations. A survey of 624 key opinion leaders around the country, conducted by the NCI’s National Hispanic/Latino Cancer Network, identified patient-doctor communication as one of five cancer prevention and control issues of greatest significance to the Hispanic-Latino population.⁶⁹ A study of low-income patients treated for breast cancer suggested that symptom disparities can be moderated by intervention targeting patient-provider communication.⁶⁶

Health Care System Barriers

Health care consumers have experiences, opinions, knowledge and objective data about their health that are not systematically incorporated into their care. Human biology and behavior are complex under normal health states. These complexities are intensified in the context of health risks or adverse health conditions. Modern assessment and monitoring of an individual’s health status, and delivery of cutting-edge interventions, require orchestration of not only patients and direct care providers, but also an entire community of technology experts, innovators and service providers. However, our current health system is characterized by limited face-to-face patient-clinician contacts that are scheduled at inconvenient times and locations. Our health systems have often failed to provide adequate opportunities for the integration of clinical data with patients’ subjective and objective information, which are required to provide care that is “safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable” (p. 25).⁷⁰ Time constraints within the context of an exam visit and patients’ hesitancy to verbally report certain symptoms,⁷¹ can result in missed or under-communicated SQL of important clinical significance. This has become such an important issue in oncology care that a bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives (HR1927) in 2009 that would mandate reimbursement for nurse visits for all patients on oral chemotherapeutic agents and provide increased funding for symptom management research.

Changes in payment and organization of care have resulted in a changing work environment for many clinicians. Many health care services, including much of the care provided to cancer patients, have shifted from inpatient to ambulatory settings.⁷² A move from traditional fee-for-service payment systems to capitated care has created incentives for health care organizations to provide care using fewer resources.^{73, 74} One common result of these changes has been an increase in the numbers of ambulatory patients evaluated within a given time period. Patient surveys have reported that clinicians spent less time talking with patients and offered less explanation of care in a managed care setting than in settings primarily reimbursed through traditional fee-for-service payment structures.⁷⁵ At the same time, effective clinician-patient communication is increasingly emphasized as an important aspect of quality cancer care, as reflected in standards for clinical care and clinical outcomes promoted by government⁷⁶ and accreditation bodies⁷⁷ and by oncology professionals.^{78, 79} The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590)⁸⁰ enacted in March 2010, has mandated the creation of an ‘Innovation Center’ within Medicare by 2011 to test approaches to improve quality and outcomes while reducing costs.

Conclusion

The deployment of assessment techniques must be distributed in all locations as health care delivery in the United States moves beyond the boundaries of the centralized, hospital based system. Assessing and incorporating patient preferences, engaging the patient in self-report and extending the interaction to the place and time favored by the patient are necessary to bring meaning to the term, patient-centered. There is beginning evidence that these approaches can make a difference, improving care quality. Technological approaches to distributing patient assessments and interventions in clinical cancer care can offer the patient an opportunity to participate more fully in the clinical process, allowing information gathering and follow-up to occur at a convenient location and time, and without the clock ticking away minutes of an office visit.

Acknowledgments

Supported in part by National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Nursing Research NR008726 (Berry, PI)

Footnotes

Manuscript work completed at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

1. Doorenbos AZ, Berger AM, Brohard-Holbert C, Eaton L, Kozachik S, LoBiondo-Wood G, Mallory G, Rue T, Varricchio C. 2008 ONS research priorities survey. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2008;35(6):E100–107. [PubMed]

2. Lyman GH. Chemotherapy dose intensity and quality cancer care. Oncology (Williston Park) 2006 Dec;20(14 Suppl 9):16–25. [PubMed]

3. Paice JA. Assessment of symptom clusters in people with cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;(32):98–102. [PubMed]

4. Faithfull S. ‘Just grin and bear it and hope that it will go away’: coping with urinary symptoms from pelvic radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 1995;4(4):158–165. [PubMed]

5. Zabora JR, Blanchard CG, Smith ED, Roberts CS, Glajchen M, Sharp JW, Britzenhofeszoc KM, Locher JW. Prevalence of Psychological Distress Among Cancer Patients Across the Disease Continuum. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology. 1997;15(2):73–87.

6. Pirl WF, Roth AJ. Diagnosis and treatment of depression in cancer patients. Oncology (Huntington) 1999;13(9):1293–1301. discussion 1301-1292, 1305-1296. [PubMed]

7. Kroenke K, Zhong X, Theobald D, Wu J, Tu W, Carpenter JS. Somatic symptoms in patients with cancer experiencing pain or depression: prevalence, disability, and health care use. Arch Intern Med. 2010 Oct 11;170(18):1686–1694. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

8. Given CW, Given B, Azzouz F, Stommel M, Kozachik S. Comparison of changes in physical functioning of elderly patients with new diagnoses of cancer. Med Care. 2000;38(5):482–493. [PubMed]

9. Page GG, Ben-Eliyahu S. Pain kills: Animal models and neuro-immunological links. Seattle: IASP Press; 1998.

10. Peterson DE, Lalla RV. Oral mucositis: the new paradigms. Curr Opin Oncol. 2010 Jul;22(4):318–322. [PubMed]

11. Back M, Guerrieri M, Wratten C, Steigler A. Impact of radiation therapy on acute toxicity in breast conservation therapy for early breast cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2004 Feb;16(1):12–16. [PubMed]

12. Wujcik D, Yarbro CH, Frogge MH, Goodman M, editors. Cancer Symptom Management. 3. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 1999. Infection; pp. 307–327.

13. Shafi MA, Bresalier RS. The gastrointestinal complications of oncologic therapy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. Sep;39(3):629–647. [PubMed]

14. Ang KK, Trotti A, Brown BW, et al. Randomized trial addressing risk features and time factors of surgery plus radiotherapy in advanced head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Nov 1;51(3):571–578. [PubMed]

15. Trotti A, Bellm LA, Epstein JB, et al. Mucositis incidence, severity and associated outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a systematic literature review. Radiother Oncol. 2003 Mar;66(3):253–262. [PubMed]

16. Given B, Given CW, McCorkle R, et al. Pain and fatigue management: results of a nursing randomized clinical trial. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2002 Jul;29(6):949–956. [PubMed]

17. Given C, Given B, Rahbar M, et al. Effect of a cognitive behavioral intervention on reducing symptom severity during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Feb 1;22(3):507–516. [PubMed]

18. Given CW, Bradley C, You M, Sikorskii A, Given B. Costs of novel symptom management interventions and their impact on hospitalizations. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010 Apr;39(4):663–672. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

19. Kurtz ME, Kurtz JC, Given CW, Given B. Effects of a symptom control intervention on utilization of health care services among cancer patients. Med Sci Monit. 2006 Jul;12(7):CR319–324. [PubMed]

20. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer Statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010 Sep–Oct;60(5):1–24. [PubMed]

21. Yancik R, Wesley MN, Ries LA, et al. Comorbidity and age as predictors of risk for early mortality of male and female colon carcinoma patients: a population-based study. Cancer. 1998 Jun 1;82(11):2123–2134. [PubMed]

22. Berry DL, Ellis WJ, Schwien CC, Woods NF. Treatment decision making by men with localized prostate cancer: the influence of personal factors. Urologic Oncology. 2003;21(2):93–100. [PubMed]

23. Fellowes D, Fallowfield LJ, Saunders CM, Houghton J. Tolerability of hormone therapies for breast cancer: how informative are documented symptom profiles in medical notes for ‘well-tolerated’ treatments? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001 Mar;66(1):73–81. [PubMed]

24. National Quality Forum. Web]. 2010; http://www.qualityforum.org.

25. Jacobsen PB, Ransom S. Implementation of NCCN distress management guidelines by member institutions. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2007 Jan;5(1):99–103. [PubMed]

26. Braeken AP, Lechner L, van Gils FC, et al. The effectiveness of the Screening Inventory of Psychosocial Problems (SIPP) in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: design of a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:177. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

27. Velikova G, Brown JM, Smith AB, Selby PJ. Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology. Br J Cancer. 2002 Jan 7;86(1):51–59. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

28. Andersen BL. Psychological interventions for cancer patients to enhance the quality of life. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992;60(4):552–568. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

29. Cleeland CS. Cancer-related symptoms. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2000;10(3):175–190. [PubMed]

30. Bruera E. Routine symptom assessment: good for practice and good for business. Support Care Cancer. 2008 Jun;16(6):537–538. [PubMed]

31. Levine MN, Ganz PA. Beyond the development of quality-of-life instruments: where do we go from here? JCO. 2002;20(9):2215–2216. [PubMed]

32. Taenzer P, Bultz BD, Carlson LE, et al. Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients. Psychooncology. 2000;9(3):203–213. [PubMed]

33. Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, Wever LD, Aaronson N. Health related quality-of-life assessments and patient physician communication. JAMA. 2002;288:3027–3034. [PubMed]

34. Basch E, Artz D, Dulko D, et al. Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005 May 20;23(15):3552–3561. [PubMed]

35. Abernethy AP, Zafar SY, Uronis H, et al. Validation of the Patient Care Monitor (Version 2.0): A Review of System Assessment Instrument for Cancer Patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010 Oct;40(4):545–58. [PubMed]

36. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, et al. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Feb 15;22(4):714–724. [PubMed]

37. Hilarius DL, Kloeg PH, Gundy CM, Aaronson NK. Use of health-related quality-of-life assessments in daily clinical oncology nursing practice: a community hospital-based intervention study. Cancer. 2008 Aug 1;113(3):628–637. [PubMed]

38. Ruland CM, Holte HH, Roislien J, et al. Effects of a computer-supported interactive tailored patient assessment tool on patient care, symptom distress, and patients’ need for symptom management support: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Jul–Aug;17(4):403–410. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

39. Berry DL, Blumenstein BA, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Fann JR, Austin-Seymour M, Bush N, Karras BT, Lober WB, McCorkle R. Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 10;29(8):1029–1035. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

40. Erharter A, Giesinger J, Kemmler G, et al. Implementation of computer-based quality-of-life monitoring in brain tumor outpatients in routine clinical practice. J Pain Symptom Manage. Feb;39(2):219–229. [PubMed]

41. Dubenske LL, Chih MY, Dinauer S, Gustafson DH, Cleary JF. Development and implementation of a clinician reporting system for advanced stage cancer: initial lessons learned. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Sep–Oct;15(5):679–686. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

42. Basch E, Artz D, Iasonos A, et al. Evaluation of an online platform for cancer patient self-reporting of chemotherapy toxicities. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 May–Jun;14(3):264–268. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

43. Johnson GD, Moore K, Fortner B. Baseline evaluation of the AIM Higher Initiative: establishing the mark from which to measure. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2007 May;34(3):729–734. [PubMed]

44. Berry DL, Wilkie DJ, Thomas CR, Jr, Fortner P. Clinicians communicating with patients experiencing cancer pain. Cancer Invest. 2003 Jun;21(3):374–381. [PubMed]

45. Kennedy-Sheldon L, Hilaire D, Berry DL. Provider Verbal Responses to Patient Distress Cues During Ambulatory Oncology Visits. Oncol Nurs Forum. In press (accepted 5/19/2010) [PubMed]

46. NIH. [Accessed 12 Mar, 2011.];State-of-the-Science Conference on Symptom Management in Cancer: Pain, Depression, and Fatigue. Web site pdf]. 2002; http://consensus.nih.gov/2002/2002CancerPainDepressionFatigueSOS022Program.pdf.

47. Kallen MA, Yang D, Haas N. A technical solution to improving palliative and hospice care. Support Care Cancer. 2010 Jan 16; [E-pub ahead of print] [PubMed]

48. Kim NY, Richardson L, He W, Jones G. Patient preference to use a questionnaire varies according to attributes. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Sep 30; [E-pub ahead of print] [PubMed]

49. Bernstein R. US Hispanic Population Surpasses 45 Million-Now 15 Percent of Total. Bureau USC, Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce; 2008.

50. US Census Bureau. American community survey, R1620:Percent of people 5 years and over who speak Spanish at home, Census Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce; 2007.

51. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics/Latinos 2009–2011. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2009. [Accessed 30 Oct 2010.]. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/ffhispanicslatinos20092011.pdf.

52. Ramirez AG, Suarez L, Chalela P, et al. Cancer risk factors among men of diverse Hispanic or Latino origins. Prev Med. 2004 Aug;39(2):263–269. [PubMed]

53. Zambrana RE, Breen N, Fox SA, Gutierrez-Mohamed ML. Use of cancer screening practices by Hispanic women: analyses by subgroup. Prev Med. 1999 Dec;29(6 Pt 1):466–477. [PubMed]

54. Savitz DA, Janevic TM, Engel SM, Kaufman JS, Herring AH. Ethnicity and gestational diabetes in New York City, 1995–2003. BJOG. 2008 Jul;115(8):969–978. [PubMed]

55. Borrell LN, Crawford ND. Disparities in self-reported hypertension in Hispanic subgroups, non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white adults: the national health interview survey. Ann Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;18(10):803–812. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

56. Bowie JV, Juon HS, Cho J, Rodriguez EM. Factors associated with overweight and obesity among Mexican Americans and Central Americans: results from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey. Prev Chronic Dis. 2007 Jan;4(1):A10. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

57. Oquendo MA, Lizardi D, Greenwald S, Weissman MM, Mann JJ. Rates of lifetime suicide attempt and rates of lifetime major depression in different ethnic groups in the United States. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2004 Dec;110(6):446–451. [PubMed]

58. Alegria M, Canino G, Shrout PE, et al. Prevalence of mental illness in immigrant and non-immigrant U.S. Latino groups. Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Mar;165(3):359–369. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

59. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. Assessment of cultural sensitivity of cancer information in ethnic print media. J Health Commun. 2006 Jun;11(4):425–447. [PubMed]

60. Resnicow K, Baranowski T, Ahluwalia JS, Braithwaite RL. Cultural sensitivity in public health: defined and demystified. Ethn Dis. 1999 Winter;9(1):10–21. [PubMed]

61. Eversley R, Estrin D, Dibble S, Wardlaw L, Pedrosa M, Favila-Penney W. Post-treatment symptoms among ethnic minority breast cancer survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2005 Mar;32(2):250–256. [PubMed]

62. Ashing-Giwa KT, Padilla GV, Bohorquez DE, Tejero JS, Garcia M. Understanding the breast cancer experience of Latina women. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2006;24(3):19–52. [PubMed]

63. Juarez G, Ferrell B, Borneman T. Influence of culture on cancer pain management in Hispanic patients. Cancer Pract. 1998 Sep–Oct;6(5):262–269. [PubMed]

64. Anderson KO, Green CR, Payne R. Racial and ethnic disparities in pain: causes and consequences of unequal care. J Pain. 2009 Dec;10(12):1187–1204. [PubMed]

65. Anderson KO, Mendoza TR, Payne R, et al. Pain education for underserved minority cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Dec 15;22(24):4918–4925. [PubMed]

66. Maly RC, Liu Y, Leake B, Thind A, Diamant AL. Treatment-related symptoms among underserved women with breast cancer: the impact of physician-patient communication. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Feb;119(3):707–716. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

67. Wildes KA, Miller AR, de Majors SS, Ramirez AG. The religiosity/spirituality of Latina breast cancer survivors and influence on health-related quality of life. Psychooncology. 2009 Aug;18(8):831–840. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

68. Taylor EJ. Spirituality, culture, and cancer care. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2001 Aug;17(3):197–205. [PubMed]

69. Ramirez AG, Gallion KJ, Suarez L, et al. A national agenda for Latino cancer prevention and control. Cancer. 2005 Jun 1;103(11):2209–2215. [PubMed]

70. Committee on Quality Health Care; Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.

71. Back A. Patient-physician communication in oncology: what does the evidence show? Oncology (Williston Park) 2006 Jan;20(1):67–74. discussion 77-68, 83. [PubMed]

72. Williams SJ. An overview of health care. In: Williams SJ, editor. Ambulatory Care Management. 3. Albany: International Thompson Publishing; 1998. pp. 3–17.

73. Barton PL. Understanding the US Health Services System. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press; 1999.

74. Committee on Quality Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. chpt 8. Institute of Medicine; 2001. Aligning payment policies with quality improvement; pp. 181–206.

75. Blendon RJ, Knox RA, Brodie M, Benson JM, Chervinsky G. Americans compare managed care, Medicare, and fee-for-service. J Am Health Policy. 1994;4(3):42–47. [PubMed]

76. Epstein RM, Street RL. Institute NC. Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care: Promoting Healing and Reducing Suffering. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2007.

77. The Joint Commission. The Joint Commission Standards for Hospitals. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: The Joint Commission; 2008.

78. Patients’ bill of rights for quality cancer care. Oncology Nursing Society. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001 Apr;28(3):441. [PubMed]

79. American Hospital Association. [Accessed 12 Mar.];The patient care partnership: understanding expectations, rights, and responsibilities. 2003 http://www.aha.org/aha/content/2003/pdf/pcp_english_030730.pdf.

80. House of Representatives; United States Congress . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act HR 3590. 2010