ArticleApplied clinical informatics2023
A RE-AIM Evaluation of a Visualization-Based Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome System.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A tailored maturity model for REDCap-based patient-facing technology: revealing development stages and guiding future evolution.JAMIA open · 2026Review
- Designing an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Information Infrastructure Supported by the RE-AIM Implementation Framework.Advances in cancer education and quality improvement · 2025Article
- "It Attracts Your Eyes and Brain": Refining Visualizations for Shared Decision-Making with Heart Failure Patients.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Article
- Perceptions of patient-reported outcome data access and sharing among patients with heart failure: ethical implications for research.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2024Article
- Seamless Integration of Computer-Adaptive Patient Reported Outcomes into an Electronic Health Record.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesHealth care systems are primarily collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for research and clinical care using proprietary, institution- and disease-specific tools for remote assessment. The purpose of this study was to conduct a Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) evaluation of a scalable electronic PRO (ePRO) reporting and visualization system in a single-arm study.
methodsThe
resultsReach-the total reach of the study was 70 participants (median age: 69, 31% female, 17% Black or African American, 27% reported not having enough financial resources). Effectiveness-half (51%) of participants completed the 2-week follow-up survey and 36% completed all follow-up surveys. Adoption-the desire for increased self-knowledge, the value of tracking symptoms, and altruism motivated participants to adopt the tool. Implementation-the predisposing factor was access to, and comfort with, computers. Three enabling factors were incorporation into routines, multimodal nudges, and ease of use. Maintenance-reinforcing factors were perceived usefulness of viewing symptom reports with the tool and understanding the value of sustained symptom tracking in general.
conclusionChallenges in ePRO reporting, particularly sustained patient engagement, remain. Nonetheless, freely available, scalable, disease-agnostic systems may pave the road toward inclusion of a more diverse range of health systems and patients in ePRO collection and use.
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.