ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2021
Implementation of a cloud-based electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) platform in patients with advanced cancer.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electronic patient-reported outcome measures for triaging and scheduling outpatient appointments: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Pooled 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
- Digitally supported shared decision-making and treat-to-target in rheumatology: a qualitative study embedded in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Rheumatology international · 2023Trial
- Patient education on PROM completion in clinical care settings: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Reimagining patient-reported outcomes in the age of generative AI.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Development of an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported outcome-based shared decision-making dashboard in oncology.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Implementation Strategies for Quality Improvement in Palliative Care: A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Acceptability, Effectiveness, and Roles of mHealth Applications in Supporting Cancer Pain Self-Management: Integrative Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Review
- The use of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes in follow-up after palliative radiotherapy: A survey study in Belgium.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Impact of an Electronic Medical Record-Connected Questionnaire on Efficient Nursing Documentation: Usability and Efficacy Study.JMIR nursing · 2023Article
- Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study.JMIR cancer · 2023Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient reported outcomes (PROs) have been associated with improved symptom management and quality of life in patients with cancer. However, the implementation of PROs in an academic clinical practice has not been thoroughly described. Here we report on the execution, feasibility and healthcare utilization outcomes of an electronic PRO (ePRO) application for cancer patients at an academic medical center.
methodsWe conducted a randomized trial comparing an experimental ePRO arm to standard of care in patients with advanced cancer in the thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary oncology groups at Stanford Cancer Center from March 2018 to November 2019. We describe the pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation phases of the ePRO arm, technological barriers, electronic health record (EHR) integration, clinician burden, and patient data privacy and security. Feasibility was pre-specified to be at least 70% completion of all questionnaires. Acceptability was based on patient and clinician feedback. Ambulatory healthcare utilization was assessed by reviewing numbers of phone messages, electronic portal messages, and referrals for supportive care.
resultsOf 617 ePRO questionnaires sent to 72 patients, 445 (72%) were completed. Most clinicians (87.5%) and patients (93%) felt neutral or positive about the ePRO tool's ease of use. Exposure to ePRO did not cause a measurable change in ambulatory healthcare utilization, with a median of less than two phone messages and supportive care referrals, and 5-6 portal messages.
conclusionsWeb-based ePRO tools for patients with advanced cancer are feasible and acceptable without increasing clinical burden. Key lessons include the importance of pilot testing, engagement of stakeholders at all levels, and the need for customization by disease group. Future directions for this work include completion of EHR integration, expansion to other centers, and development of integrated workflows for routine clinical practice.
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.