Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37140730›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2023

Patient and clinician-reported experiences of using electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) as part of routine cancer care.

Amelia Payne, Ashley Horne, Neil Bayman, Fiona Blackhall, Layla Bostock, Clara Chan, Joanna Coote, Marie Eaton, Jacqueline Fenemore, Fabio Gomes and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assessment measures for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy among pediatric oncology patients: an updated systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Implementation of an ePRO-based system supporting treatment readiness assessments in lung cancer care: a mixed-methods study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Patient-perceived barriers and facilitators for risk-stratified follow-up care in lung cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

21 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amelia PayneUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK. amelia.payne@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3590-8281
Ashley HorneUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Neil BaymanChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Fiona BlackhallUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Layla BostockChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Clara ChanChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Joanna CooteChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Marie EatonChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Jacqueline FenemoreChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Fabio GomesChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Emma HalkyardChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Margaret HarrisChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Colin LindsayChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Delyth McEnteeChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Hilary NealChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Laura PembertonChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Hamid SheikhChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
David WoolfChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
James PriceChristie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Janelle YorkeUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Corinne Faivre-FinnUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
The Christie NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK CTRQQR-2021\100010Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer and its treatment can have significant impacts on health status, quality of life and functioning of patients. Direct information from patients regarding these aspects can be collected via electronic platforms in the form of electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs). Research has shown that the use of ePROMS in cancer care leads to improved communication, better symptom control, prolonged survival and a reduction in hospital admissions and emergency department attendance. Acceptability and feasibility of routine ePROM collection has been reported by both patients and clinicians but to date their use has predominantly been limited to clinical trials. MyChristie-MyHealth is an initiative from a UK comprehensive cancer centre The Christie NHS Foundation Trust which incorporates the regular collection of ePROMs into routine cancer care. This study, carried out as part of a service evaluation, explores patient and clinician experiences of using the MyChristie-MyHealth ePROMs service.

results100 patients with lung and head and neck cancers completed a Patient Reported Experience questionnaire. All patients reported that MyChristie-MyHealth was easy to understand and, almost all found it timely to complete and easy to follow. Most patients (82%) reported it improved their communication with their oncology team and helped them to feel more involved with their care (88%). A large proportion of clinicians (8/11) felt ePROMs helped communication with their patients and over half (6/10) felt they led to consultations being more patient focused. Clinicians also felt that the use of ePROMs resulted in patients being more engaged in consultations (7/11) and their cancer care in general (5/11). Five clinicians reported that the use of ePROMs altered their clinical decision making.

conclusionsRegular ePROMs collection as part of routine cancer care is acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Both patients and clinicians feel their use improved communication and increased the feeling of patient involvement with their care. Further work is needed to explore the experiences of patients that did not complete the ePROMs as part of the initiative and to continue to optimize the service for both patients and clinicians.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsQuality of LifeHumansMedical OncologyPatient ParticipationPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresCancerElectronic questionnairesePROMsPatient experiencePatient reported outcomesPROMs

Identifiers

PMID37140730
PMCPMC10160312
OpenAlexW4368358531

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.