Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32112276›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2021

Racial differences in user experiences and perceived value of electronic symptom monitoring in a cohort of black and white bladder and prostate cancer patients.

Cleo A Samuel, Angela B Smith, Wendi Elkins, Jennifer Richmond, Zahra Mahbooba, Ethan Basch, Antonia V Bennett, Arlene E Chung, Mattias Jonsson, Ronald C Chen and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Using feedback tools to enhance the quality and experience of care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cleo A SamuelDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Glob1al Public Health and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1105F McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB#7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7411, USA. cleo_samuel@unc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7536-3998
Angela B SmithDepartment of Urology At University of North Carolina School of Medicine and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2115 Physicians Office Building, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Wendi ElkinsDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1105F McGavran-Greenberg Hall, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Jennifer RichmondDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 302 Rosenau Hall, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Zahra MahboobaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 101 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7235, USA.
Ethan BaschLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina At Chapel Hill, 170 Manning Drive, Campus Box 7305, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7305, USA.
Antonia V BennettDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1106A McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB 7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Arlene E ChungUniversity of North Carolina School of Medicine and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 5034 Old Clinic Building, CB 7110, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Mattias JonssonPatient Reported Outcomes Core Facility, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Ronald C ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center and Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 101 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Bryce B ReeveDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Department of Pediatrics, and Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University, 215 Morris Street, Room 230, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USDuke University · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI David Darr · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
PROMIS Validation in Prospective Population-based Prostate Cancer Research StudyR01CA174453 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI CHEN, RONALD, REEVE, BRYCE B · 2012 to 2016
$1.4M
Symptom and Healthcare Access Reporting and Evaluation (SHARE) for Supportive Care EquityK01CA218473 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI SAMUEL-RYALS, CLEO A · 2018 to 2021
$641k
National Institute of Health National Cancer Institute R01CA174453NCI NIH HHS 1 K01 CA218473-01A1NCI NIH HHS K01 CA218473NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086NCI NIH HHS R01 CA174453Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 73921
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeElectronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are increasingly being used for symptom monitoring during routine cancer care, but have rarely been evaluated in diverse patient populations. We assessed ePRO user experiences and perceived value among Black and White cancer patients.

methodsWe recruited 30 Black and 49 White bladder and prostate cancer patients from a single institution. Participants reported symptoms using either a web-based or automated telephone interface over 3 months and completed satisfaction surveys and qualitative interviews focused on user experiences and value. Using a narrative mixed methods approach, we evaluated overall and race-specific differences in ePRO user experiences and perceived value.

resultsMost participants selected the web-based system, but Blacks were more likely to use the automated telephone-based system than Whites. In satisfaction surveys, Whites more commonly reported ease in understanding and reporting symptoms compared with Blacks. Blacks more often reported that the ePRO system was helpful in facilitating symptom-related discussions with clinicians. During interviews, Blacks described how the ePRO helped them recognize symptoms, while Whites found value in better understanding and tracking symptoms longitudinally. Blacks also expressed preferences for paper-based ePRO options due to perceived ease in better understanding of symptom items.

conclusionElectronic patient-reported outcomes are perceived as valuable for variable reasons by Black and White cancer populations, with greater perceived value for communicating with clinicians reported among Blacks. To optimize equitable uptake of ePROs, oncology practices should offer several ePRO options (e.g., web-based, phone-based), as well as paper-based options, and consider the e-health literacy needs of patients during implementation.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsUrinary BladderElectronicsHumansMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeRace FactorsCancerElectronic patient-reported outcomesPatient-provider communicationSymptom monitoring

Identifiers

PMID32112276
PMCPMC9307105
OpenAlexW3008559753

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.