Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40237928›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025

Exploratory analysis of electronic patient-reported outcomes collection: comparing online and in-clinic modalities in cancer care.

Eric Adjei Boakye, Mrudula Nair, Nada Al-Antary, Carl Wilson, Katelyn Kerr, Theresa M Zatirka, Kelly A Hirko, Farah Elsiss, Steven S Chang, Benjamin Movsas and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

12 authors.

Eric Adjei BoakyeDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA. eadjei1@hfhs.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9163-8103
Mrudula NairDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Nada Al-AntaryDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Carl WilsonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Katelyn KerrWayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA.
Theresa M ZatirkaHenry Ford Cancer, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Kelly A HirkoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Farah ElsissCenter for Health Policy & Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Steven S ChangDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Benjamin MovsasHenry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences, Detroit, MI, USA.
Michael RyanHenry Ford Cancer, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Samantha TamDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been shown to improve cancer survival but are generally underutilized in cancer care. It is unclear whether electronic-PROMS (ePROMs) modality (online vs. in-clinic) may address barriers to completion. We examined whether patient sociodemographic and clinical factors differed by completion modality.

methodsPatients with cancer who had an oncologic provider visit from January 2021 to March 2023 at a tertiary cancer center were assigned the National Institute of Health's computer adaptive technology Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments. Patients completed ePROMs either through online patient portal (online) up to 7 days before the visit or used a tablet at the clinic visit (in-clinic) if not completed online. Multivariable logistic regression model estimated associations between patient sociodemographic and clinical factors and completion modality.

resultsA total of 8556 patients completed ePROMs (43.3% completed in-clinic). Females were less likely than males to complete ePROMs in-clinic (aOR = 0.89, 0.84-0.93) as were patients with commercial insurance (aOR = 0.83, 0.77-0.89) vs. Medicare; or saw radiation oncologist (aOR = 0.89, 0.83-0.96) vs. medical oncologist. However, patients were more likely to complete ePROMs in-clinic if they identified as Black race (aOR = 1.41, 1.33-1.49) vs. White; were single (aOR = 1.21, 1.14-1.29) or divorced/separated/widowed (aOR = 1.11, 1.04-1.18) vs. married; or saw a provider located in rural (aOR = 1.33, 1.25-1.42) vs. urban area.

conclusionsPatients who were males, Blacks, unmarried, Medicare insured or saw providers located in rural area were more likely to complete ePROMs in-clinic. Given the preference for online completion before visits for real-time symptom monitoring, targeted efforts are needed to boost online PROMs completion. PLAIN MESSAGE: This is a cross-sectional analysis of the associations between sociodemographic and clinical factors with two electronic patient reported outcome measures completion modalities. The results indicate that about half of patients completed online and half completed in-clinic, with males, Blacks, patients who were divorced/separated/widowed, had Medicare insurance and saw a medical oncologist completing electronic patient reported outcome measures in-clinic. We support offering both options while addressing barriers to either modality.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient PortalsSocioeconomic FactorsCancer patientsCompletion modalityOnline health platformPatient reported outcome measures (PROMs)Patient reported outcome (PROs)Racial disparities

Identifiers

PMID40237928
PMCPMC12182510

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.