Trial reportJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
First-time use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in a cluster randomized trial: a qualitative study.
Trial report in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementing electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Kidney Disease: a qualitative systematic review of barriers, enablers, and mechanisms.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Caregiver satisfaction with early integrated palliative care in oncology: secondary outcomes from the PALLiON cluster-RCT.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Exploring Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Enhance Patient-Centered Care: Qualitative Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Insights from using patient-reported outcomes as an intervention during cancer treatment in Denmark: potential reasons for limited effectiveness.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough there is clear evidence supporting the beneficial effects of regularly assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the comprehensive integration of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into routine cancer care remains limited. This study aimed to explore the facilitators and barriers encountered by principal investigators (PIs) (oncologists) and study nurses during the implementation of the Eir ePROM within a cluster randomized trial (c-RCT) in cancer outpatient clinics. Additionally, we sought to examine the influence of Eir on the working routines of the participants.
methodsIndividual semi-structured interviews and a focus group were conducted with nine oncologists and study nurses involved in the implementation of the ePROM tool Eir. Interviews elucidated their experiences of barriers and facilitators when implementing Eir through a cluster randomized trial. Data were analysed according to Framework Analysis, using both an inductive and deductive approach. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used in the deductive stages of analysis.
resultsThree overarching themes were identified from the data: (1) Willingness to invest; accepting that new eras come with a cost, (2) Management anchoring; changes start at the top, and (3) Creation of a cohesive framework; fostering collective comprehension. We found a notable disparity between oncologists and nurses in their willingness to invest time and effort in implementing the tool. While participants recognized the need to transform patient consultation methods to benefit from digital symptom management, opinions varied on whether the potential benefits justified the associated cost. Furthermore, the degree of management anchoring at various levels significantly impacted the implementation process. At the local level, it was seen as either a facilitator or a barrier, influencing the outcome of the implementation. Additionally, establishing a cohesive framework was crucial, as this fostered a collective understanding among those involved in the implementation.
conclusionsOur study underscores the importance of considering the diverse perspectives of health care professionals and fostering interprofessional collaboration for the successful implementation of ePROMs in healthcare settings. Future research should explore strategies to bridge professional disparities and promote a shared understanding of the value provided by ePROMs.
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.