ReviewJMIR cancer2023
Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study.
Review in JMIR cancer, 2023. 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.
- Barriers and facilitators for implementing patient-reported outcome measures in oncology practices: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Implementing electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Kidney Disease: a qualitative systematic review of barriers, enablers, and mechanisms.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- Perceived Barriers, Supportive-Care Integration, and Readiness for AI Integration in Oncology Practice: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Cancer Care Providers in Saudi Arabia.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Sustainability and Time Trends in Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Assessment in Routine Cancer Care: Systematic Scoping Review and Follow-Up Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Optimizing Patient Engagement with Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Across the Cancer Continuum: A Qualitative Study.Palliative medicine reports · 2025Article
- Leveraging the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to Develop the American College of Rheumatology's Toolkit for Implementation of Rheumatoid Arthritis Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice: A Qualitative Study.Arthritis care & research · 2024Article
- A Qualitative Study of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring After Thoracic Surgery.The Journal of surgical research · 2024Article
- Facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: a systematic review based on the consolidated framework for implementation research.Implementation science communications · 2024Review
- BREAST-Q REACT: Qualitative Assessment of the Design, Functionality, and Clinical Utility of a New Score Interpretation Tool.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Involving Patients and Clinicians in the Design of Wireframes for Cancer Medicines Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Care: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer is a major global health problem. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) systems have been developed to support the treatment of patients with cancer. Although clear evidence of the benefits of the routine use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) exists, engaging physicians in using these systems has been challenging.
objectiveThis study aims to identify and analyze what is currently known about health care professionals' (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators that exist and influence the use of ePRO systems for cancer care.
methodsWe carried out a systematic mapping study by conducting searches of 3 databases (Association for Computing Machinery, PubMed, and Scopus). Eligible papers were published between 2010 and 2021, and they described HCPs' perspectives on using ePROs. The data on the included papers were extracted, a thematic meta-synthesis was performed, and 7 themes were summarized into 3 categories.
resultsA total of 17 papers were included in the study. The HCPs' perceived barriers and facilitators of using ePROs can be summarized into 7 themes: clinical workflow, organization and infrastructure, value to patients, value to HCPs, digital health literacy, usability, and data visualization and perceived features. These themes can be further summarized into 3 categories: work environment, value to users, and suggested features. According to the study, ePROs should be interoperable with hospital electronic health records and adapted to the hospital workflow. HCPs should get appropriate support for their use. Additional features are needed for ePROs, and special attention should be paid to data visualization. Patients should have the option to use web-based ePROs at home and complete it at the time most valuable to the treatment. Patients' ePRO notes need attention during clinical visits, but ePRO use should not limit patient-clinician face-to-face communication.
conclusionsThe study revealed that several aspects need improvement in ePROs and their operating environments. By improving these aspects, HCPs' experience with ePROs will enhance, and thus, there will be more facilitating factors for HCPs to use ePROs than those available today. More national and international knowledge about using ePROs is still needed to cover the need for information to develop them and their operating environments to meet the needs of HCPs.
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.