ArticlemHealth2021
The usefulness of the Electronic Patient Visit Assessment (ePVA)
Article in mHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for Concerning Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Perspectives of Frontline Clinicians and End-Line Users on Smartphone-Based Photography for Assessing Traumatic Dental Injuries: Focus Group Interview Study and Thematic Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Article
- Using content validity index methodology for cross-cultural translation of a patient-reported outcome measure for head and neck cancer.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- A Preliminary Validation of an Optimal Cutpoint in Total Number of Patient-Reported Symptoms in Head and Neck Cancer for Effective Alignment of Clinical Resources with Patients' Symptom Burden.Cancer care research online · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Mobile Health Technology Interventions for the Postdischarge Management of Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with head and neck cancer (HNC) experience painful, debilitating symptoms and functional limitations that can interrupt cancer treatment, and decrease their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The Electronic Patient Visit Assessment (ePVA) for head and neck is a web-based mHealth patient-reported measure that asks questions about 21 categories of symptoms and functional limitations common to HNC. This article presents the development and usefulness of the ePVA as a clinical support tool for real-time interventions for patient-reported symptoms and functional limitations in HNC.
methodsBetween January 2018 and August 2019, 75 participants were enrolled in a clinical usefulness study of the ePVA. Upon signing informed consent, participants completed the ePVA and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ) general (C30) questionnaire v3.0 (scores range from 0 to 100 with 100 representing best HRQoL). Clinical usefulness of the ePVA was defined as demonstration of reliability, convergent validity with HRQoL, and acceptability of the ePVA (i.e., >70% of eligible participants complete the ePVA at two or more visits and >70% of ePVA reports are read by providers). Formal focus group discussions with the interdisciplinary team that cared for patients with HNC guided the development of the ePVA as a clinical support tool. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used throughout the study. Descriptive statistics consisting of means and frequencies, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Student's t-tests were calculated using SAS 9.4 and STATA.
resultsThe participants were primarily male (71%), White (76%), diagnosed with oropharyngeal or oral cavity cancers (53%), and undergoing treatment for HNC (69%). Data analyses supported the reliability (alpha =0.85), convergent validity with HRQoL scores, and acceptability of the ePVA. Participants with the highest number of symptoms and functional limitations reported significantly worse HRQoL (sum of symptoms: r=-0.50, P<0.0001; sum of function limitations: r=-0.56, P<0.0001). Ninety-two percent of participants (59 of 64) who had follow-up visits within the 6-month study period completed the ePVA at two or more visits and providers read 89% (169 of 189) of automated ePVA reports. The use of the ePVA as a clinical support tool for real-time interventions for symptoms and functional limitations reported by patients is described in a clinical exemplar.
conclusionsThis research indicates that the ePVA may be a useful mHealth tool as a clinical support tool for real-time interventions for patient-reported symptoms and functional limitations in HNC. The study findings support future translational research to enhance the usefulness of the ePVA in real world settings for early interventions that decrease symptom burden and improve the QoL of patients with HNC.
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.