Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38326573›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Clinic-based perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a tertiary cancer center.

Nada Al-Antary, Kelly A Hirko, Farah Elsiss, Theresa Zatirka, Michael Ryan, Benjamin Movsas, Steven S Chang, Eric Adjei Boakye, Samantha H Tam

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Exploratory analysis of electronic patient-reported outcomes collection: comparing online and in-clinic modalities in cancer care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Nada Al-AntaryDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, One Ford Place, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Kelly A HirkoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Farah ElsissCenter for Health Policy & Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Theresa ZatirkaHenry Ford Cancer, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Michael RyanHenry Ford Cancer, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Benjamin MovsasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Steven S ChangDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Eric Adjei BoakyeDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, One Ford Place, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA. eadjei1@hfhs.org.
Samantha H TamDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study examines providers' and clinic staff's perspectives on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) implementation at an academic medical center.

methodsAn anonymous and voluntary survey was administered to Henry Ford Cancer providers and clinic staff 18 months after PROs program implementation in September 2020, to obtain their feedback on perceived barriers, impact on workflows, and PROs administration frequency in routine cancer care.

resultsA total of 180 providers and 40 clinic staff were invited to complete the survey; 31% and 63% completed the survey, respectively. Approximately 68% of providers reported that electronically integrated PROs scores were either beneficial or somewhat beneficial to their patients, while only 28% of the clinic staff reported that PROs were beneficial or somewhat beneficial to patients. According to the clinic staff, the most common barriers to PROs completion included lack of patients' awareness of the utility of the program with respect to their care, patients' health status at check-in, and PROs being offered too frequently.

conclusionThere is favorable acceptance of the PROs program by providers, but clinic staff found it less favorable. Interventions to address barriers and improve program engagement are needed to ensure broad adoption of PROs in oncology practice.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsHumansMedical OncologyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer survivorsClinic staffHealth care providersPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)Patient-reported outcomes (PROs)

Identifiers

PMID38326573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.