Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40234324›Full record

ReviewJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2025

Interventions influencing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) response rates in cancer: a scoping review.

Nada Al-Antary, Samantha Tam, Suma Alzouhayli, Theresa M Zatirka, Michael Ryan, Steven S Chang, Benjamin Movsas, Eric Adjei Boakye

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Factors associated with response to patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of systematic and scoping reviews, and meta-analyses.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Do non-responders of a geriatric screening questionnaire face lower one-year survival compared to responders? A retrospective cohort study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

Nada Al-AntaryDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, One Ford Place Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Samantha TamDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, One Ford Place Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Suma AlzouhayliWayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA.
Theresa M ZatirkaHenry Ford Cancer, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Michael RyanDepartment of Supportive Oncology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Steven S ChangDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, One Ford Place Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Benjamin MovsasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Eric Adjei BoakyeDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, One Ford Place Detroit, MI, 48202, USA. eadjei1@hfhs.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite the emerging evidence around patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) monitoring benefits in oncology, completion rates remain low due to numerous multi-level barriers. This review summarizes existing literature on interventions employed to improve PROMs response rates in routine practice among patients with cancer.

methodsPubMed database was used to perform a literature search of articles published between 2000 and 2022. Articles were included if they focused on PROMs implementation in non-clinical trial setting and reported results on methodologies and their influence on response rates.

resultsA total of 495 abstracts were screened for eligibility, and 14 articles that met the inclusion criteria were included. PROMs mode of administration varied between electronic only (four studies, 28.6%), paper only (two studies, 14.3%), electronic-paper (six studies, 42.9%), and electronic-telephone (two studies, 14.3%). Reminder systems, using electronic, paper, or in-person, were implemented in 12 studies (85.7%). Different strategies of initial recruitment, aiming to enhance patients' PROM engagements, were outlined in five studies (35.7%).

conclusionMultiple interventions were implemented to improve PROMs completion rates. Mode of questionnaire administration, reminder systems, patient education on benefits of PROMs, and clinical staff involvement were shown to be effective in increasing the overall completion rate. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This review provides a summary for researchers and clinicians on the current practice of PROMs implementation, thus creating a framework for the impact of different methodologies on patient's response rate for better monitoring of recurring symptoms, including long-term side effects, emotional distress, and changes in health-related quality of life.

Indexed as

Cancer survivorsCompletion ratePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)Patient-reported outcomes (PROs)Real-world setting

Identifiers

PMID40234324

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.