Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39623054›Full record

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

Co-design of an electronic patient-reported outcome symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy toxicities.

Julia Lai-Kwon, Claudia Rutherford, Stephanie Best, Thai Ly, Iris Zhang, Catherine Devereux, Dishan Herath, Kate Burbury, Michael Jefford

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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Development of an electronic system for self/proxy symptom tracking alongside children with cancer and their caregivers: a co-design exemplar.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  7. 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.

Julia Lai-KwonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Julia.Lai-Kwon@petermac.org.
Claudia RutherfordCancer Care Research Unit (CCRU), Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Stephanie BestSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Thai LyPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Iris ZhangDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Catherine DevereuxDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Dishan HerathDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Kate BurburySir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael JeffordDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUtilising electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) to monitor symptoms can improve patient outcomes. However, ePRO systems are typically not co-designed with end-users which may limit their utility and long-term sustainability. We aimed to co-design a real-time ePRO symptom monitoring system for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) toxicities.

methodsWe conducted three co-design workshops at an Australian quaternary cancer centre. Participants were patients who had received/were receiving ICI or their caregivers, managing clinicians, administration staff, and electronic medical record (EMR) analysts. Workshop 1 identified preferences for an ideal ePRO system, informing the development of a prototype and generic workflow. Workshop 2 sought feedback on the prototype and workflow. Workshop 3 reviewed the updated prototype and adapted the generic workflow to create a site-specific workflow. Workshop transcripts were analysed thematically.

resultsTwenty-seven participants were included. Themes relating to system content and functionality included the need for customisation according to anticipated ICI toxicities; maximising patient accessibility, comprehension, and usability; providing ICI-specific self-management advice; and maximising clinician interpretability and usability. Themes relating to the model of care included the importance of maintaining the "human element" within the ePRO system, providing 24-hour support, alignment with existing clinical workflows, and automation of symptom monitoring processes using the EMR.

conclusionEarly, broad stakeholder engagement through co-design may improve the relevance, uptake, and sustainability of ePRO systems. Future work will involve usability and acceptance testing of the prototype, followed by implementation into routine care.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAustraliaHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsImmunotherapyNeoplasmsImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsCo-designDigital healthElectronic patient-reported outcomesImmune checkpoint inhibitorsImmunotherapyPatient-reported outcomesSymptom monitoring

Identifiers

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.