ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015
Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment with cancer patients in the hospital and at home.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Electronic patient-reported outcome systems and capabilities in cancer care: a systematic review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID): a randomised controlled trial in systemic cancer treatment.BMC cancer · 2017Trial
- Patient education on PROM completion in clinical care settings: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Opportunities and challenges in pooling health-related quality-of-life data for prediction modeling in breast cancer across Europe: lessons from the EORTC BALANCE project.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2025Article
- Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Quality of Life Score in Japanese Patients With Pancreatic Cancer on Second-Line Chemotherapy: A Multicenter Observational Study.Cancer medicine · 2025Observational
- Remote monitoring in older adults with cancer, opportunities and challenges: a narrative review.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Review
- Adherence to daily electronic symptom screening in pediatric cancer: associations with time, location and pain.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Measurement Equivalence and Feasibility of the Electronic and Paper Versions of the POSAS, EQ-5D, and DLQI: A Randomized Crossover Trial.European burn journal · 2024Article
- Standardized Usage of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements is Time-Efficient and Feasible.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- The impact of electronic versus paper-based data capture on data collection logistics and on missing scores in thyroid cancer patients.Endocrine · 2024Article
- Usability of an Automated System for Real-Time Monitoring of Shared Decision-Making for Surgery: Mixed Methods Evaluation.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: Integration with computerized adaptive testing.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2023Article
- 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
- Development and Integration of Patient-Reported Measures into E-Health System: Pilot Feasibility Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study.JMIR cancer · 2023Review
- Digital Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Skull Base Diseases-Analysis of Feasibility and Pitfalls Two Years after Implementation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) application for patients with prostate cancer.PloS one · 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
- Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes for ENT Patients-Evaluation of the Status Quo, Patients' View, and Future Perspectives.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PRO) provide a more comprehensive picture of patients' quality of life than do mere physicians' ratings. Electronic data collection of PRO offers several advantages and allows assessments at patients' homes as well. This study reports on patients' personal internet use, their attitudes towards electronic and web-based PRO assessment (clinic-ePRO and home-ePRO) and the feasibility of these two assessment modes.
methodsAt the Medical University of Innsbruck and Kufstein County Hospital, cancer patients who participated in clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO were asked to complete a comprehensive evaluation form on their personal internet usage, attitudes towards and the feasibility of routine clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO with the Computer-based Health Evaluation System (CHES) software.
resultsIn total, 113 patients completed the evaluation form for clinic-ePRO (Ø 45 years, SD 14) and 45 patients for home-ePRO (Ø 58 years, SD 10; 33.1 per cent inclusion rate for this sample). Most patients expressed willingness to complete routine clinic-ePRO assessments in the future (94.7 per cent of clinic-ePRO patients and 84.4 per cent of home-ePRO patients) and to discuss their data with attending physicians (82.2 per cent, home-ePRO patients only). Overall, patients preferred the software over paper-pencil questionnaires (67.2 per cent of clinic-ePRO patients and 60 per cent of home-ePRO patients) and experienced it as easy to use. Only a few minor suggestions for improvement were made (e.g. adjustable font sizes).
conclusionsThe use of clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO was in general shown to be feasible and well accepted. However, to be more inclusive in the implementation of clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO, educational programs concerning their particular benefit in oncology practice potentially could enhance patients' attitudes towards, and consequently their acceptance of and compliance with electronic PRO assessments.
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.