ArticleCureus2024
Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome System at Cancer Hospitals in Japan.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of patient-reported outcome item libraries in cancer research: an EORTC Quality of Life Group study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Implementing electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in oncology practice has shown substantial clinical benefits. However, it can be challenging in routine practice, warranting strategies to adapt to different clinical contexts. In light of this, this study aimed to describe the implementation process of the ePRO system and elucidate the provider-level implementation barriers and facilitators to a novel ePRO system at cancer hospitals in Japan. Methods We implemented an ePRO system linked to electronic medical records at three cancer hospitals. Fifteen patients with solid cancers at the outpatient oncology unit were asked to regularly complete the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™) questionnaire and European Organization for Research and Treatment Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) by using the smartphone app between October 2021 and June 2022. Thirteen healthcare professionals were interviewed to identify implementation barriers and facilitators to the ePRO system by using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework. Results The healthcare professionals identified a lack of clinical resources and a culture and system that emphasizes treatment over care as the main barriers; however, the accumulation of successful cases, the leadership of managers, and the growing needs of patients can serve as facilitators to the implementation. Conclusions Our experience implementing an ePRO system in a few Japanese oncology practices revealed comprehensive barriers and facilitators. Further efforts are warranted to develop more successful implementation strategies.
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.