Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38954112›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024

A mixed methods evaluation of patient perspectives on the implementation of an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program in cancer care.

Madison J Lyleroehr, Kimberly A Webster, Laura M Perry, Elijah A Patten, Jackelyn Cantoral, Justin D Smith, David Cella, Frank J Penedo, Sofia F Garcia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Putting CATs and item banks to work: How to construct predictive and sensitive PROMIS screeners for use in ambulatory oncology.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

9 authors.

Madison J LyleroehrDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Kimberly A WebsterDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Laura M PerryDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Elijah A PattenDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Jackelyn CantoralBiological Sciences Division, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.
Justin D SmithDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Division of Health System Innovation and Research, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.
David CellaDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Frank J PenedoDepartments of Psychology and Medicine, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33124, USA.
Sofia F GarciaDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. sofia-garcia@northwestern.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3300-385X

Funding

Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NUCATS)UL1TR001422 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI D'AQUILA, RICHARD · 2015 to 2023
$56.8M
Implementation and Evaluation of an Expanded Bilingual Electronic Symptom Management Program across a Multi-site, Fully-integrated Comprehensive Cancer CenterUM1CA233035 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI CELLA, DAVID · 2018 to 2021
$8.1M
AHRQ HHS R18 HS026170AHRQ HHS R18HS026170NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001422NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA233035NCI NIH HHS UM1CA233035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs cancer centers have increased focus on patient-centered, evidenced-based care, implementing efficient programs that facilitate effective patient-clinician communication remains critical. We implemented an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes). To aid evaluation of cPRO implementation, we asked patients receiving care in one of three geographical regions of an academic healthcare system about their experiences.

methodsUsing a sequential mixed-methods approach, we collected feedback in two waves. Wave 1 included virtual focus groups and interviews with patients who had completed cPRO. In Wave 2, we administered a structured survey to systematically examine Wave 1 themes. All participants had a diagnosed malignancy and received at least 2 invitations to complete cPRO. We used rapid and traditional qualitative methods to analyze Wave 1 data and focused on identifying facilitators and barriers to cPRO implementation. Wave 2 data were analyzed descriptively.

resultsParticipants (n = 180) were on average 62.9 years old; were majority female, White, non-Hispanic, and married; and represented various cancer types and phases of treatment. Wave 1 participants (n = 37) identified facilitators, including cPRO's perceived value and favorable usability, and barriers, including confusion about cPRO's purpose and various considerations for responding. High levels of clinician engagement with, and patient education on, cPRO were described as facilitators while low levels were described as barriers. Wave 2 (n = 143) data demonstrated high endorsement rates of cPRO's usability on domains such as navigability (91.6%), comprehensibility (98.7%), and relevance (82.4%). Wave 2 data also indicated low rates of understanding cPRO's purpose (56.7%), education from care teams about cPRO (22.5%), and discussing results of cPRO with care teams (16.3%).

conclusionsWhile patients reported high value and ease of use when completing cPRO, they also reported areas of confusion, emphasizing the importance of patient education on the purpose and use of cPRO and clinician engagement to sustain participation. These results guided successful implementation changes and will inform future improvements.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsNeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CareQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID38954112
PMCPMC11219691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.