Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2026

Designing the PanCancer National Core Outcome Set Coverage Tool for patient-reported outcomes in cancer care: Stakeholder priorities for tool features and functionality (146434)

Mollie Cahill 1 , Tamara Jones 2 , Sandra Nolte 2 3 , Huw Rees 4 , Nick Cristofani-Wykes 4 , Sarah Weller 4 , Sibilah Breen 4 , Nina Melksham 5 , Darija Kvesic 5 , Emily Symons 5 , Claire Snyder 6 7 , Carolyn Mazariego 1
  1. Australian Research Centre for Cancer Survivorship, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  2. Person-Centred Research, Monash University, Melbourne
  3. Eastern Health, Melbourne
  4. Movember Institute of Men’s Health, Movember, Melbourne, VIC
  5. Cancer Australia, Sydney
  6. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine , Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  7. Bloomberg School of Public Health , Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Introduction: The Australian PanCancer Initiative, a partnership between the Movember consortium, Cancer Australia and the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, created a national Core Outcome Set (COS) to support consistent collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) and experience measures (PREMS). Following mapping of existing PROMs/PREMs against the COS, this study explored stakeholder perspectives to inform development of a practical COS Coverage Tool for cancer services to consider when selecting PROMs/PREMs for implementation.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders representing clinical care, cancer registries, research and health system/policy organisations explored preferred tool format, functionality, decision-support requirements, implementation considerations and contextual factors influencing uptake. Participants were presented with a prototype tool to facilitate discussion. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis. 

Results: Interviews (n=18) with participants representing services with established PROM/PREM programs, registry-based collections, and organisations with limited implementation identified four key concepts for tool design. 1) Participants prioritised usability and functionality over delivery platform; 2) Stakeholders supported functionality that mapped existing PROMs/PREMs against the COS to identify coverage gaps; 3) Participants emphasised the importance of transparent, evidence-based recommendations explaining why instruments were suggested and the trade-offs involved, and 4) Stakeholders highlighted that recommendations should account for implementation context, including service purpose, infrastructure, and patient population. 

Conclusions: Stakeholders showed strong support for a national COS Coverage Tool that functions as a transparent, evidence-informed decision support resource. The tool can help organisations evaluate existing or proposed PROM/PREM coverage of the PanCancer COS, supporting more consistent and meaningful measurement of patient-reported outcomes across cancer care. Findings demonstrated successful uptake depends on balancing methodological rigour with practical usability and providing context-sensitive guidance that supports local decision-making. These findings shaped the development of the PanCancer COS Coverage Tool and emphasise the value of stakeholder engagement in developing national implementation resources.