Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38011613›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2024

Assessing Patient Readiness for an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Symptom Management Intervention in a Multisite Study.

Roshan Paudel, Angela C Tramontano, Christine Cronin, Sandra L Wong, Don S Dizon, Hannah H Jenkins, Jessica Bian, Raymond U Osarogiagbon, Deborah Schrag, Michael J Hassett

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03850912 (SIMPRO Research Center), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

NCT03850912 nacompletednot on this map

SIMPRO Research Center: Integration and Implementation of PROs for Symptom Management in Oncology Practice

TypeinterventionalSponsorDana-Farber Cancer InstituteRan2019 to 2025Enrolled42,808ConditionsOther Cancer, Gastrointestinal Cancer, Thoracic Cancer, Gynecologic CancerArmsStakeholder Survey (Control Period), Stakeholder Survey (Intervention Period), Qualitative Interview, SASS Questionnaire, eSyM
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Roshan PaudelDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-8584-7045
Angela C TramontanoDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0001-5718-6297
Christine CroninDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-5474-0923
Sandra L WongDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH.ORCID 0000-0002-8594-6086
Don S DizonLifespan Cancer Institute and Brown University, Providence, RI.ORCID 0000-0001-6541-9580
Hannah H JenkinsWest Virginia University Cancer Center, Morgantown, WV.
Jessica BianMaine Medical Center, Portland, ME.ORCID 0000-0003-4057-0254
Raymond U OsarogiagbonBaptist Memorial Healthcare Corporation, Memphis, TN.ORCID 0000-0001-9427-8545
Deborah SchragMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-4334-5717
Michael J HassettDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0003-0754-3510
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USBaptist Memorial Health Care · USBrown University · USDartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center · USMaine Medical Center · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USWest Virginia University · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
SIMPRO Research Center: Integration and Implementation of PROs for Symptom Management in Oncology PracticeUM1CA233080 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI HASSETT, MICHAEL JAMES, OSAROGIAGBON, RAYMOND U · 2018 to 2023
$9.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA233080
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhile the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in routine clinical practice is increasing, barriers to patient engagement limit adoption. Studies have focused on technology access as a key barrier, yet other characteristics may also confound readiness to use ePROs including patients' confidence in using technology and confidence in asking clinicians questions.

methodsTo assess readiness to use ePROs, adult patients from six US-based health systems who started a new oncology treatment or underwent a cancer-directed surgery were invited to complete a survey that assessed access to and confidence in the use of technology, ease of asking clinicians questions about health, and symptom management self-efficacy. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were fit to assess the association between technology confidence, ease of asking questions, and symptom management self-efficacy.

resultsWe contacted 3,212 individuals, and 1,043 (33%) responded. The median age was 63 years, 68% were female, and 75% reported having access to patient portals. Over 80% had two or more electronic devices. Most patients reported high technology confidence, higher ease of asking clinicians questions, and high symptom management self-efficacy (n = 692; 66%). Patients with high technology confidence also reported higher ease of asking nurses about their health (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.58 [95% CI, 2.36 to 8.87];

conclusionPatient readiness to use ePROs likely depends on multiple factors, including technology and communication confidence, and symptom management self-efficacy. Future studies should assess interventions to address these factors.

Indexed as

PatientsSoftwareAdultCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38011613
PMCPMC10827290
OpenAlexW4389040260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.