Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26644190›Full record

Trial reportJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2016

Improving an electronic system for measuring PROs in routine oncology practice.

Albert W Wu, Sharon M White, Amanda L Blackford, Antonio C Wolff, Michael A Carducci, Joseph M Herman, Claire F Snyder, PatientViewpoint Scientific Advisory Board

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Adaptation of digital integration of PROMs and PREMs in oncology during implementation: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. How to make PROMs work: qualitative insights from leaders at United States hospitals with successful PROMs programs.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. From statistics to clinics: the visual feedback of PROMIS® CATs.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Albert W WuDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. awu@jhu.edu.
Sharon M WhiteSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Amanda L BlackfordSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Antonio C WolffSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael A CarducciSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Joseph M HermanSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Claire F SnyderDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
PatientViewpoint Scientific Advisory Board

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
Feasibility and Value of a Website for Assessing Patient-Reported OutcomesR21CA134805 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SNYDER, CLAIRE F, WU, ALBERT W. · 2009 to 2010
$397k
A Website for Outpatient Quality of Life AssessmentR21CA113223 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WU, ALBERT W. · 2005 to 2006
$208k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973NCI NIH HHS R21 CA113223NCI NIH HHS R21 CA134805
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOur aim was to study how patients and their clinicians evaluated the usability of PatientViewpoint, a webtool designed to allow patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to be used in clinical practice.

methodsAs part of a two-round quality improvement study, breast and prostate cancer patients and their medical and radiation oncology clinicians completed semi-structured interviews about their use of PatientViewpoint. The patient interview addressed different phases of the PRO completion workflow: reminders, completing the survey, and viewing the results. The clinician interviews asked about use of PatientViewpoint, integration with the clinical workflow, barriers to use, and helpful and desired features. Responses were recorded, categorized, and reviewed. After both rounds of interviews, modifications were made to PatientViewpoint.

resultsAcross the two rounds, 42 unique patients (n = 19 in round 1, n = 23 in round 2) and 12 clinicians (all in both rounds) completed interviews. For patients, median age was 65, 81 % were white, 69 % were college graduates, 80 % had performance status of 0, 69 % had loco-regional disease, and 81 % were regular computer users. In the quality improvement interviews, patients identified numerous strengths of the system, including its ability to flag issues for discussion with their provider. Comments included confusion about how scores were presented and that the value of the system was diminished if the doctor did not look at the results. Requests included tailoring questions to be applicable to the individual and providing more explanation about the score meaning, including having higher scores consistently indicating either better or worse status. Clinicians also provided primarily positive feedback about the system, finding it helpful in some cases, and confirmatory in others. Their primary concern was with impact on their workflow.

conclusionsSystematically collected feedback from patients and clinicians was useful to identify ways to improve a system to incorporate PRO measures into oncology practice. The findings and evaluation methods should be useful to others in efforts to integrate PRO assessments into ambulatory care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Systems to routinely collect patient-reported information can be incorporated into oncology practices and provide useful information that promote patient and clinician partnership to improve the quality of care.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentQuality ImprovementSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferencePhysiciansProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeClinical practiceElectronic health recordOncologyPatient-reported outcomeQuality improvementQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID26644190
PMCPMC4864116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.