Field observation as a method to guide patient-reported outcome measurement integration in community cancer centers

TL;DR

This study shows how field observation helps improve the use of patient-reported outcomes in community cancer centers by understanding real-world conditions.

Contribution

A structured field observation protocol is developed and applied to guide PRO implementation in low-resource cancer centers.

Findings

Field observation revealed site-specific factors like clinic layout and staffing that affect PRO implementation.

Tailored implementation strategies were developed based on observed differences in patient flow and digital literacy.

Leadership continuity and clear workflows were linked to higher implementation readiness.

Abstract

Field observation is a valuable but underused methodological approach in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) implementation research, particularly in low-resourced settings such as community cancer centers (CCCs). Rooted in ethnographic tradition, field observations allow researchers to assess clinical environments in real time, capturing workflow processes, communication patterns, and contextual factors not readily accessible through interviews or surveys. When applied through implementation science frameworks such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this method supports systematic assessment of organizational structures, implementation climate, and readiness for change. The objective of this study was to develop and apply a structured field observation protocol to inform context-specific PRO implementation workflows in CCCs providing breast cancer care.

Structured field observations were conducted at five CCCs during the pre-implementation phase of a larger initiative to integrate imPROVE, a web-based PRO data collection platform, into routine care. The protocol followed three phases: (1) pre-visit planning with site leads to gather contextual and logistical data; (2) in-clinic observations by two trained researchers documenting clinic layout, patient flow, staff roles, and communication; and (3) post-visit data processing using structured templates and CFIR-guided analysis. Field notes were triangulated with insights from staff, patient and community leader interviews (reported elsewhere) to generate site-specific implementation strategies.

Observations uncovered key contextual differences across sites, including clinic layout, staffing stability, patient volume, caregiver presence, and digital literacy. These variations influenced feasibility and shaped tailored implementation plans. For example, sites with long waiting periods between check-in and exam were better suited for waiting-room PRO collection, while others required provider-facilitated approaches. Language diversity and caregiver engagement also emerged as critical determinants. Sites with strong leadership continuity and clear workflows demonstrated higher implementation readiness.

Field observation was instrumental in identifying real-world barriers and facilitators that shaped site-specific PRO workflows. This approach enhanced ecological validity, stakeholder engagement, and the feasibility of PRO integration in CCCs. Embedding field observation in early implementation planning strengthens the methodological rigor of PRO research and supports sustainable, context-aligned interventions in resource-constrained settings.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-026-00859-5.