ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2023
Let's talk about it: an exploration of the comparative use of three different digital platforms to gather patient-reported outcome measures.
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 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.
- Remote, self-administered, smartphone cognitive testing in a registry-based cohort: Feasibility, reliability, and validity findings.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Improving the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure in Clinical Practice: Tackling Current Challenges With Innovative Digital Communication Technologies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures provide valuable evidence in clinical trials; however, poor compliance with PRO measures is a notable and long-standing problem, resulting in missing data that potentially impact the interpretation of trial results. Interactive, patient-centric platforms may increase participants' motivation to complete PRO measures over the course of a clinical trial. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate and optimize the usability of 3 popular consumer technologies-a traditional app-based interface, a chatbot interface, and a speech-operated interface-that may be used to improve user engagement and compliance with PRO measures.
methodsParticipants aged 18-75 years from the general United States population tested the usability of 3 ePRO platforms: a traditional app-based interface using Datacubed Health Platform (Datacubed), a web-based chatbot interface using the Orbita platform, and a speech-operated Alexa interface using an Alexa Skill called "My Daily Wellness." The usability of these platforms was tested with 2 PRO measures: the EQ-5D-5 L and the SF-12v2 Health Survey (SF-12v2), Daily recall. Using a crossover design, 3 cohorts of participants tested each ePRO platform daily for 1 week. After testing, interviews were conducted regarding the participants' experience with each platform.
resultsA total of 24 adults participated in the study. The mean age of participants was 45 years (range, 21-71 years), and half were female (n = 12; 50%). Overall, participants prioritized speed, ease of use, and device portability in selecting their preferred platform. The Datacubed app met these criteria and was the preferred platform among most participants (n = 20; 83%). Participants also suggested various modifications to the platforms, such as programmable notifications, adjustable speed, and additional daily reminders.
conclusionsThese data demonstrate the importance of speed, ease of use, and device portability, features that are currently incorporated in the Datacubed app, in ePRO platforms used in future clinical trials. Additionally, the usability of ePRO platforms may be optimized by adding programmable notifications, adjustable speed, and increased daily reminders. The results of this study may be used to enhance the usability and patient centricity of these platforms to improve user compliance and engagement during clinical trials.
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.