ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023
Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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.
- Feasibility and usefulness of symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes: an experience at single-center outpatient oncology clinic.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Medication Risks and Their Association with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Inpatients with Cancer.Cancers · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (2010) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment.
methodsWe analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis - focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment - the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013), was administered to group A.
resultsWe analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from "1" (illustrating non achievement) to "5" (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs.
conclusionResults indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible.
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.