Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35133288›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome App for Health-Related Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients: Evaluation and Acceptability Analysis in a Two-Center Prospective Trial.

Joachim Graf, Nina Sickenberger, Katharina Brusniak, Lina Maria Matthies, Thomas M Deutsch, Elisabeth Simoes, Claudia Plappert, Lucia Keilmann, Andreas Hartkopf, Christina Barbara Walter and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.0field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Joachim Graf *Institute for Health Sciences, Section of Midwifery Science, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2208-0446
Nina Sickenberger *Hospital for General Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0083-182X
Katharina BrusniakHospital for General Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2005-9432
Lina Maria MatthiesNational Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9754-0844
Thomas M DeutschNational Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0621-1290
Elisabeth SimoesDepartment of Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6149-6439
Claudia PlappertInstitute for Health Sciences, Section of Midwifery Science, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1896-3959
Lucia KeilmannDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, München, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0795-1680
Andreas HartkopfDepartment of Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1227-1118
Christina Barbara WalterDepartment of Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3059-7595
Markus HahnDepartment of Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0284-6566
Tobias EnglerDepartment of Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8063-2053
Stephanie WallwienerHospital for General Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2045-650X
Florian SchuetzNational Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2529-1591
Peter A FaschingDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4885-8471
Andreas SchneeweissNational Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2429-4512
Sara Yvonne BruckerDepartment of Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8588-1094
Markus WallwienerHospital for General Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4139-9340
University Children's Hospital Tübingen · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DEHeidelberg University · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne in eight women is diagnosed with breast cancer in the course of their life. As systematic palliative treatment has only a limited effect on survival rates, the concept of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was developed for measurement of patient-centered outcomes. Various studies have already demonstrated the reliability of paper-based patient-reported outcome (pPRO) and electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) surveys and that the 2 means of assessment are equally valid.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze the acceptance and evaluation of a tablet-based ePRO app for breast cancer patients and to examine its suitability, effort, and difficulty in the context of HRQoL and sociodemographic factors.

methodsOverall, 106 women with adjuvant or advanced breast cancer were included in a 2-center study at 2 major university hospitals in Germany. Patients were asked to answer HRQoL and PRO questionnaires both on a tablet on-site using a specific eHealth assessment website and on paper. The suitability, effort, and difficulty of the app and self-reported technical skills were also assessed. Only the results of the electronically acquired data are presented here. The results of the reliability of the pPRO data have already been published elsewhere.

resultsPatients regarded the ePRO assessment as more suitable (80/106, 75.5%), less stressful (73/106, 68.9%), and less difficult (69/106, 65.1%) than pPRO. The majority of patients stated that ePRO assessment improves health care in hospitals (87/106, 82.1%). However, evaluation of ePROs depended on the level of education (P=.003) in the dimensions of effort and difficulty (regression analysis). The app was rated highly in all categories. HRQoL data and therapy setting did not show significant correlations with the app's evaluation parameters.

conclusionsThe results indicate that ePRO surveys are feasible for measuring HRQoL in breast cancer patients and that those patients prefer ePRO assessment to pPRO assessment. It can also be seen that patients consider ePRO assessment to improve hospital health care. However, studies with larger numbers of patients are needed to develop apps that address the needs of patients with lower levels of education and technical skills.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMobile ApplicationsElectronicsFemaleHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresProspective StudiesQuality of LifeReproducibility of Resultsacceptabilitybreast cancereHealthelectronic patient-reported outcomesevaluation

Identifiers

PMID35133288
PMCPMC8864528
OpenAlexW3202557643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.