Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39672577›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Enhancing representativeness of patient-reported outcomes in routine radiation oncology care: a quality improvement protocol to address non-response.

Chengbo Zeng, Neil E Martin, Andrea L Pusic, Maria O Edelen, Jason B Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Multilevel factors associated with nonresponse to patient-reported outcome measures in routine radiation oncology care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  2. Patient-reported symptom assessments and early chemotherapy discontinuation in routine gastrointestinal cancer care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Chengbo ZengPatient Reported Outcomes, Value and Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA czeng8@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3512-1115
Neil E MartinHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Andrea L PusicPatient Reported Outcomes, Value and Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Maria O EdelenPatient Reported Outcomes, Value and Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jason B LiuPatient Reported Outcomes, Value and Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

Nonresponse of Patient-reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer CareR03CA292987 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI LIU, JASON B, ZENG, CHENGBO · 2024 to 2024
$179k
NCI NIH HHS R03 CA292987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNon-response significantly undermines the representativeness of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data, thereby compromising its utility for facilitating high-value, equitable, patient-centred care in cancer clinics. Quality improvement studies are needed to assess the representativeness of PRO data collected in routine care, identify the underlying causes of non-response and develop novel methods to ensure data representativeness. Using a multilevel framework and a mixed-methods approach, we have three aims: (1) characterise the non-response of the Global-10 across clinic, provider and patient levels; (2) identify multilevel causes of non-response and potential strategies to improve representativeness in PRO collection; and (3) develop effective modifications to missing-data methods to enhance the representativeness of pre-existing PRO data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our primary data source is the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10, collected as part of routine care at the Radiation Oncology clinics within the Mass General Brigham (MGB) healthcare system. Other sources include (1) Harvard Catalyst for provider-specific data, (2) MGB administrative data, (3) public Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data and (4) the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System. We will conduct quantitative analyses to assess variations in Global-10 non-response across multilevel factors. Additionally, we will use qualitative interviews with patients and clinical professionals to understand the causes of non-response and to formulate strategies to expand the reach of PRO collection to underrepresented cancer patients, improve their completions and enhance overall data representativeness. Finally, we will integrate implementation science knowledge and findings from the first two aims into missing-data methods to manage non-response in the pre-existing Global-10 data and to evaluate their performance in preserving representativeness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (24-225). Written informed consent will be obtained from participants. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality ImprovementRadiation OncologyHumansNeoplasmsPatient-Centered CareResearch DesignImplementation SciencePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQUALITATIVE RESEARCHRadiation oncologySTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODSSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39672577
PMCPMC11647348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.