ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2021
Cancer follow-up supported by patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing intended curative complex surgery for 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Health-related quality of life in patients undergoing hepato-pancreato biliary cancer surgery: A prospective follow-up study.Surgery open science · 2025Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes as a Tool for Involvement in Metastatic Melanoma Care.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimPatient activation (PA) and Patient Involvement (PI) are considered elements in good survivorship. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a follow-up supported by electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) on PA and PI.
methodFrom February 2017 to January 2019, we conducted an explorative interventional study. We included 187 patients followed after intended curative complex surgery for advanced cancer at two different Departments at a University Hospital. Prior to each follow-up consultation, patients used the ePRO to screen themselves for clinical important symptoms, function and needs. The ePRO was graphically presented to the clinician during the follow-up, aiming to facilitate patient activation and involvement in each follow-up. PA was measured by the Patient Activation Measurement (PAM), while PI was measured by five indicator questions. PAM and PI data compared between (- ePRO) and interventional (+ ePRO) consultations. PAM data were analysed using a linear mixed effect regression model with intervention (yes/no) and time along with the interaction between them as categorical fixed effects. The analyses were further adjusted for time (days) since surgery.
resultsAccording to our data, ePRO supported consultations did not improve PA. The average mean difference in PAM score between + ePRO and - ePRO consultations were - 0.2 (95% confidence interval - 2.6; 2.2, p = 0.9). There was no statistically significant improvement in PAM scores over time in neither + ePRO nor - ePRO group (p = 0.5). Based on the five PI-indicator questions, the majority of all consultations were evaluated as "some, much or very much" involved in consultation; providing a wider scope of dialogue, encouraged patients to ask questions and share their experiences and concerns. Nevertheless, another few patients reported not to be involved at all in the consultations.
conclusionWe did not demonstrate evidence for ePRO supported consultations to improve patient activation, and patient activation did not improve over time. Our results generate the hypotheses that factors related to ePRO supported consultation had the potential to support PI by offering a wider scope of dialogue, and encourage patients to ask questions and share their experiences and concerns during follow-up.
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.