Trial reportJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2016
Improving an electronic system for measuring PROs in routine oncology practice.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- 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 · 2026Article
- Patient education on PROM completion in clinical care settings: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- A Qualitative Study of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring After Thoracic Surgery.The Journal of surgical research · 2024Article
- Factors associated with weight gain in pre- and post-menopausal women receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Article
- Incorporation of emergent symptoms and genetic covariates improves prediction of aromatase inhibitor therapy discontinuation.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Assessing Patient Readiness for an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Symptom Management Intervention in a Multisite Study.JCO oncology practice · 2024Article
- Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Clinical Care Using Electronic Administration and Telehealth Technologies: Realist Synthesis of Potential Mechanisms for Improving Health Outcomes.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- 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 · 2023Article
- Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study.JMIR cancer · 2023Review
- Implementation of electronic prospective surveillance models in cancer care: a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Essential barriers and considerations for the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measures in oncological practice: contextualizing the results of a feasibility study with existing literature.Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health · 2022Article
- Misconceiving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) as primarily a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool: perceptions of independent healthcare sector stakeholders in the UK.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Association of treatment-emergent symptoms identified by patient-reported outcomes with adjuvant endocrine therapy discontinuation.NPJ breast cancer · 2022Article
- The Head and Neck Survivorship Tool (HN-STAR) Trial (WF-1805CD): A protocol for a cluster-randomized, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic trial to improve the follow-up care of head and neck cancer survivors.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Article
- From statistics to clinics: the visual feedback of PROMIS® CATs.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2021Article
- Using the Computer-based Health Evaluation System (CHES) to Support Self-management of Symptoms and Functional Health: Evaluation of Hematological Patient Use of a Web-Based Patient Portal.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Outcomes after kidney transplantation, let's focus on the patients' perspectives.Clinical kidney journal · 2021Review
- Further Evidence That OPG rs2073618 Is Associated With Increased Risk of Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Patients Receiving Aromatase Inhibitors for Early Breast Cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.