ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2023
Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection Systems in Oncology Clinical Trials: A Survey of Clinical Research Professionals (an Alliance Study).
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-targeted education (ePRO-E) to increase ePRO intent within an Alliance clinical trial (A221805-SI1).JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Trial
- Reluctance to Use a Psycho-Oncology Mobile App Among Patients With Primary Breast Cancer: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo describe clinical research professionals (CRPs)' experiences with electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data collection systems in oncology clinical trials and identify correlates of CRPs' attitude toward technology.
methodsAn online survey was conducted among 210 CRPs from 125 National Cancer Institute-funded research sites. Measures included CRPs' demographic characteristics, working years, employment locations, and previous experiences with various types of ePROs. Their attitude toward technology was measured by the Technology Attitude Scale-Adapted. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare two subdomains of attitude (perceived usefulness [PU] and perceived ease of use [PEU]). Multiple linear regression was used to explore correlates of (1) overall attitude, (2) PU, and (3) PEU. The significance level was 5%.
resultsParticipants' median age was 41 years (range, 21-67). Most were female (90%) and White (82%). More than half of the participants had previous experiences with web-based ePROs using patients' own devices (72%) or site-/sponsor-provided on-site devices (eg, kiosks or tablets; 64%). CRPs who were 60 years or older (β = -0.32,
conclusionThis study revealed that CRPs had various experiences with ePRO systems and attitudes toward technology. Age, working years, and previous experiences with ePROs were correlates of overall attitude toward technology and PU. These findings suggest necessary targeted training to facilitate ePRO use in oncology clinical trials by improving CRPs' awareness and attitude toward technology.
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.